A Professor of Law at the University of Ghana, Professor Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua, has raised serious concerns about the constitutional processes governing the removal of a Chief Justice in Ghana, describing them as opaque and lacking transparency.
Speaking on The Big Issue on Channel One TV on Saturday, April 26, 2025, Prof. Appiagyei-Atua said the procedure outlined under Article 146 of Ghana’s Constitution contains several weaknesses that undermine fairness, especially in light of the ongoing proceedings against Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.
“There are several weaknesses in the processes that are to be used to remove the CJ from office,” he stated.
“For example, the whole process is opaque, and transparency is lacking. So you will hear that a petition is received, it could be just one, the party against whom the petition has been raised may not know the content, and may not have the opportunity to react to that. Until the Agyei Twum’s case, that opportunity would not have been available to the chief justice,” he said.
The legal scholar further criticised the role of the Council of State, describing it as largely symbolic because its advice to the president during the process is not binding.
“The Council of State is not as independent as one would have expected it to be. Adding to that is the other layer of the fact that the consultation done by the president and the advice that comes from the consultation is not binding on the president. That makes it a mere formality or procedure that needs to be followed.
“Here one would have expected that if you look at the process for the removal of the other justices of the Supreme Court, the process is tighter, because, among others, it involves the judicial council. We all know that the judicial council is more representative, unlike the Council of State.
“In the case of Nigeria and India, the advice given by the judicial council is binding until the president has given some solid reason to justify why it should not. But in our case, we don’t have that with the Council of State coming in,” he noted.
He further, went on to highlight the role of the 5-member committee put together by the president to investigate the prima facie determined by the Council of State.
“We don’t doubt the fairness of the president, but the Constitution as a whole gives too much power to the president to make appointments all over. This committee is appointed by the president, and so, if initially, there is some fear of political bias from the president, the committee appointed by the president will also be tinted by that perception.
Lastly, Prof. Appiagyei-Atua, noted that the process for the removal of the chief justice is not entirely fair, as it offers the embattled chief justice an opportunity to appeal the decision arrived at by the committee.
“There is also, no appeal process for the chief justice. In the case of Kenya, the chief justice can appeal the decision by the committee, and even with that, the composition of the committee is not solely at the discretion of the president.
“It involves the judiciary council, and that makes it similar to the judiciary council determining a case against the chief justice and there is the possibility of appealing its decision.
“So, these are some of the weaknesses that are embedded in the constitutional processes for the removal of the chief justice,” he stated.