An all male panel of five at the Supreme Court, has unanimously dismissed a writ filed by the Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo for an injunction on the proceedings of the five-member committee, set by the president, to investigate allegations in three petitions against her.
In the application, Justice Torkornoo sought , for an order to restrain the Committee from taking any action in connection with the prima facie case determined against her, and also a restrain on the two supreme court judges on the committee, over the claim of bias.
The panel, presided over by acting chief Justice, Justice Eugene Baffoe-Bonnie, after hearing and examining the processes lawyers for the chief Justice and the Attorney-General, dismissed the application holding that it found no merit in it. without merit and said the full reasons for their decision, will be ready by June 12, 2025.
Godfred Yeboah Dame, moving the application for injunction, said their request to have the committee’s proceedings restrained, was based on the issue that, there was no prima facie determination, attached to the letter dated 22 April 2025 authored by secretary to the President, and conveyed to the Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo.
Mr. Dame said the only reference to prima facie case in the document received by the Chief Justice, was one which indicated that the President in consultation with the council of state, had made a prima facia determination against her in the three petitions.
Per the Chief Justice’s lawyer, proceedings of the committee have started, yet no proper prima facie case, has been presented to Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo. Godfred Yeboah Dame, argued that the rules of natural justice required that at least the Chief Justice be told which of the allegations contained in the petitions, a case has been made against her …..and also which of them satisfied the test in article 146 of the 1992 constitution, and if the allegations against the Chief Justice were raised from the performance of her duties, then she may be covered by 127(3) of the constitution. According to lawyer, the requirement of prima facie case was not a mere formality, but a substantive constitutional requirement which also conferred constitutional right in the Chief Justice.
Mr. Dame asserted that the only person affected by the proceedings of 146 is the Chief Justice and for that reason, it would be unfair, that a prima facie determination, is not made known to the her and that the attorney General’s claim to the contrary, was a chilling statement, that undermined the right of the suspended chief justice to fair trial, because she by law is entitled to know ahead, the charges made against her.
Arguing on the relief sought against Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang and Justice Samuel Adibu-Asiedu. Godfred Yeboah Dame, said, Justice Pwamang, together with the Chief Justice sat on two of the matters which form part of the petitions filed by two of the petitioners, and that If any of the petitions specified Justice Pwamang as witness, then it untenable for the president to have appointed him to the committee.
His argument on Justice Asiedu, was that, he had been emplaned to sit on a panel challenging article 146 and the case was adjourned a number of times.
On the three other members of the committee, Mr. Dame, claimed, they did not take the constitutional oath, which is required any person exercising such constitutional duty, to make.
Countering the application by the Chief Justice, said the court had previously ruled on matters regarding prima facie and Justice Asiedu.
In terms of Justice Asiedu, he said the court heard that the panel which Justice Asiedu was part of, did not begin the hearing of the matter and so could not form the basis on which, he should be removed from the committee. Dr. Semi-Sai, on the that on the issue of prima facie determination, explained that, court in while dismissing similar applications, recently, ruled that the issue of prima facie determination was not sufficient ground for granting an interlocutory injunction.
He also noted, the Chief Justice, asserting that she could waive the right to in-camera hearing, was legally flawed, as the provision, is a constitutional command, which can not be waived by any person affected by it. On the question on whether a case has been made for the disqualification of Justice Pwamang on grounds of bias, the deputy Attorney-General, said, the Chief Justice’s claim and relief sought against the chairman of the committee, had no effect and went on to refer the court to previous cases where a similar determination had been reached.
Dr. Srem-Sai in his final argument, denied the allegation that the three remaining members of the committee, who are not judicial officers C did not take the constitutional oath. He then concluded that in the issue of interlocutory injunction, the standard of determining whether an injunction should be granted in a public interest matter is not the same as the standard in a private interest matte.
He told the court that, there was no indication of the violations of any laws or rights, but a desire to amend the constitution and its provision.
Chairman of the five-member panel, Justice Eugene Baffoe-Bonnie, reading their unanimous opinion, dismissed the application as lacking merit.
Related
- Supreme Court rejects affidavit from Justice Gertrude Torkonoo
- Accra: SC dismisses objection to strike out five-member committee from CJ injunction application
- Update: Chief Justice Torkornoo arrives in court for hearing of injunction application
