Attorney-General urges Supreme Court to dismiss Chief Justice’s injunction request

The Attorney-General, Dr Dominic Ayine, has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo’s interlocutory injunction seeking to halt her removal proceedings.

In a 20-point affidavit, the Attorney General argued that the appropriate legal remedy for not receiving a document or process was not an injunction.

“I verily believe the same to be true that by law, the appropriate remedy for not receiving a document or a process which the applicant believes to be entitled is not an order of interlocutory injunction,” the affidavit stated.

The Attorney General denied leaking details of the removal process, stating that only the Chief Justice had made the proceedings public.

He acknowledged an opinion poll indicating that “a majority of Ghanaians support the applicant’s removal from office (only 20 per cent do not).”

However, he rejected claims that the organisation conducting the poll was close to the government.

The affidavit stressed that the Committee of Inquiry proceedings being held “in camera” was a “constitutional command meant to preserve, protect, and safeguard not only the dignity of the Chief Justice (the applicant), but all constituents.”

It asserted that records of consultations between the Council of State and the President regarding the three petitions for removal had been duly supplied to those legally entitled.

The Attorney General further argued that the Supreme Court had already ruled on May 21, 2025, in a Centre for Citizenship Constitutional and Electoral Systems LBG v. Attorney General and two others case, dismissing the Chief Justice’s claims.

“It is a breach of ethics of the legal profession and abuse of the processes of the honourable court for counsel to repeat or allow to be repeated in court an allegation of fact which counsel knows has been duly decided in the negative by the court of competent jurisdiction,” the affidavit stated.

It noted that members of the inquiry committee had taken the relevant oaths of office and asserted that failure to take an oath does not disqualify a person from performing official duties, nor nullify actions already undertaken.

GNA