By Nana Karikari, Senior International Affairs and Political Analyst
The suspension of Ghana’s Chief Justice, Her Ladyship Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, and the inquiry ordered by President John Mahama into her activities over alleged abuse of office is raising a significant constitutional conundrum and political quandary for the West African country. It has triggered profound questions about the balance of power, the independence of the judiciary, and the integrity of the country’s democratic leadership.
The President’s Action and Constitutional Justification
Supporters of President Mahama cite three anonymous petitions alleging corruption and impropriety as justification for his actions. But critics argue that the president’s move amounts to subverting Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, which outlines the process for impeaching a Chief Justice “on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity.” Here is the constitution, which is a cornerstone of the legal system in Ghana.
President Mahama argues that a prima facie case was established and that there is a duty to investigate. However, the process itself is now in question, particularly because the specific allegations remain undisclosed.
Independence of the Judiciary on Trial
The suspension has sparked intense debate over judicial independence. In any democracy, the judiciary serves as a critical check on executive power. Critics say that, regardless of whether the president’s action was constitutional, it appears to be an attempt to intimidate or sideline the judiciary—sending a potentially dangerous signal.
This has raised alarm among legal professionals and civil society advocates who fear long-term damage to the rule of law in Ghana.
Political Polarisation: NPP and NDC Reactions
The suspension has deepened Ghana’s political divide. The opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) has condemned the move as a blow to judicial independence, accusing Mahama of abusing his power and threatening mass protests.
The National Democratic Congress (NDC), the president’s party, has not released a formal statement but maintains that Mahama acted within his constitutional authority. This divergence in views reflects a growing trend of interpreting constitutional law through a partisan lens, with each side asserting their version of legality.
The Role of Parliament and a Muted Voice
Interestingly, Ghana’s Parliament has remained largely silent amid the unfolding crisis. Under the constitution, Parliament has a defined role in proceedings related to the removal of a Chief Justice. Its current posture, however, raises doubts about whether it will act as a genuine counterbalance to executive power.
This silence brings broader questions to the fore: What role should Parliament play in national emergencies? And is the doctrine of separation of powers being upheld?
Supreme Court’s Authority and the Right to a Fair Hearing
Justice Torkornoo’s suspension raises serious questions about both her individual rights and the broader integrity of the Supreme Court. While the constitution permits the removal of a Chief Justice, due process and the right to a fair hearing must be strictly observed.
To retain public confidence, the ongoing investigation must reflect the highest standards of legal and procedural integrity. Despite the suspension of its head, the Supreme Court remains a vital institution, and its impartial function during this period is essential. Justice Torkornoo has not made any public comment at this time.
The Impact on the Ordinary Ghanaian: Diminishing Credibility?
This is no ordinary crisis. For the average Ghanaian, the implications run deep. Judicial independence is a bedrock of democratic governance. If compromised, it risks undermining public trust and creating a wave of cynicism toward democratic institutions.
What to Watch: A Crossroads Moment for Ghana
Ghana stands at a crossroads. The outcome of the investigation into Chief Justice Torkornoo will affect not only her personal fate but the very future of the nation’s democracy.
Key issues to watch include:
The Rule of Law: The way this case is handled will either reinforce or erode the principle of rule of law. Due process must be transparent and free from political interference.
Institutional Capacity: Ghana’s democratic institutions must resist political pressure and uphold neutrality in handling the case.
National Solidarity: With political tensions rising, leaders on all sides must prioritize national unity over partisan gain.
Regional Leadership: Ghana has long been seen as a model of democracy in West Africa. That status now hangs in the balance.
Future of Governance: This situation may reignite calls for constitutional reform or a redefinition of the balance of power between the executive and the judiciary. It presents an opportunity to strengthen, rather than weaken, accountability and democracy.
Weighing Perspectives on the Suspension
To be fair, the suspension has evoked mixed reactions and interpretations—both legal and political. While concerns about judicial independence are valid, it is also important to acknowledge that the constitution provides a framework for addressing alleged misconduct by high-ranking officials.
Though the probe is contentious, it arguably follows the prescribed legal process. The full text of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, including the procedures for removal of judges, is available here.
It must also be said that any credible accusation of misconduct—regardless of context—can erode public confidence in institutions. Thus, the manner in which this investigation is handled, and its eventual outcome, will be crucial in either restoring trust or deepening disillusionment.
Ultimately, more important than the outcome itself is the integrity of the process: adherence to the rule of law, fair treatment for all involved, and transparent communication with the public. Only through this lens can Ghana emerge from this moment stronger and more unified.
