Accra, Ghana – In a dramatic legal and political showdown, prominent constitutional lawyer Thaddeus Sory has accused suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Torkornoo of engaging in “sanctimonious political posturing” amid her challenge to the legality of the judicial removal proceedings initiated against her. His remarks, which have drawn both criticism and support, underscore growing tensions between Ghana’s executive authority, judicial independence, and public transparency.
Backdrop of an Unprecedented Suspension
On April 22, 2025, President John Dramani Mahama took the unprecedented step of suspending Chief Justice Torkornoo following the submission of three separate petitions seeking her removal. Acting under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, the President appointed a committee to investigate the allegations, marking the first suspension of a sitting Chief Justice in Ghana’s history.
The suspension and subsequent in-camera proceedings have ignited heated national debate, with legal experts, civil society groups, and political commentators weighing in on the constitutionality and transparency of the process.
Thaddeus Sory Steps Into the Fray
As the constitutional wrangling unfolded, lawyer Thaddeus Sory emerged as one of the most vocal critics of Chief Justice Torkornoo’s public responses. In an op-ed widely circulated on legal and political platforms, Sory condemned Torkornoo’s June 25 press conference, where she accused the investigative committee of operating outside constitutional bounds and declared her intention to challenge the process in court.
Sory argued that the Chief Justice, by resorting to public commentary and legal action against the committee, was undermining the constitutional mechanisms designed to ensure judicial accountability. He described her behavior as “sanctimonious political posturing” aimed at garnering public sympathy rather than addressing the substantive constitutional questions at hand.
“This is not a moment for emotional outbursts or public opinion theatrics,” Sory wrote. “The Chief Justice ought to know that the Constitution is not a shield for officeholders against scrutiny but a framework that provides for their discipline when necessary.”
According to Sory, Torkornoo’s attempt to challenge the composition and proceedings of the Article 146 committee lacks legal standing. He contended that once a prima facie case is established and the President refers the matter to a committee, the process becomes autonomous and cannot be halted or questioned by the officeholder involved.
Torkornoo Fights Back: ‘I Will Not Resign’
In her press statement, Chief Justice Torkornoo decried what she described as a “flawed and secretive process,” arguing that the committee was violating the principles of natural justice by holding closed-door hearings without any justification related to national security or public interest.
“I have dedicated my life to defending the Constitution. I will not resign under pressure from a process that lacks transparency and fairness,” she declared defiantly. “If this can happen to the Chief Justice, imagine what can happen to the ordinary citizen.”
Torkornoo has since filed for judicial review at the High Court, seeking to compel the committee to conduct its hearings in public and to clarify what she alleges are breaches of procedural fairness. Her legal team argues that the committee’s refusal to provide full documentation of the petitions and the lack of clarity on its membership are grounds for concern.
What Article 146 Says – And What It Doesn’t
Article 146 of Ghana’s Constitution provides the framework for the removal of superior court judges, including the Chief Justice. Upon receiving a petition, the President is required to refer it to the Judicial Council for advice. If a prima facie case is found, a committee is established to investigate the matter and make a recommendation.
However, the Constitution is silent on whether such committee proceedings should be open to the public. While precedent suggests that these investigations are often conducted privately to protect the integrity of the judiciary, critics argue that in a case involving the Chief Justice herself, the threshold for transparency should be higher.
Sory, however, maintains that the Constitution grants wide discretion to the committee and that the Chief Justice’s challenge represents a conflict of interest.
“It is legally absurd for a person under investigation to dictate the terms of the investigation,” he said. “Her call for transparency is commendable in principle but misapplied in this context.”
Legal Community Divided
The legal fraternity in Ghana appears sharply divided on the issue. Some senior lawyers and academics have come to Torkornoo’s defense, insisting that the secrecy surrounding the proceedings is antithetical to democratic accountability.
Professor Kwame Asare, a constitutional law lecturer at the University of Ghana, expressed concern over what he called “institutional opacity.”
“While I agree that the process is grounded in Article 146, we cannot ignore the evolving standards of public accountability,” he noted. “A closed-door proceeding in a matter of such magnitude risks eroding public trust.”
Others, including former Attorney General Joe Ghartey, have cautioned against politicizing the judiciary, suggesting that Torkornoo’s media engagement could undermine the dignity of her office.
“We must let the Constitution work. It is not for any judge, even the Chief Justice, to second-guess constitutional procedures once triggered,” Ghartey said in a television interview.
Civil Society and Political Response
Civil society organizations have also weighed in. IMANI Africa’s president, Franklin Cudjoe, called the Chief Justice’s press briefing “unnecessary and unwise,” noting that such interventions only serve to muddy the waters and inflame public sentiment.
“There is a time to speak and a time to let the process work. Justice Torkornoo may have weakened her legal arguments by stepping into the political arena,” he said.
Political parties, predictably, are split along partisan lines. The opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) has accused President Mahama’s administration of orchestrating a “judicial coup,” while the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) insists it is merely upholding constitutional accountability.
NDC Communications Director Sammy Gyamfi dismissed Torkornoo’s claims of persecution as “a calculated distraction,” adding that no one, not even the Chief Justice, is above the law.
International Implications
Observers from the African Bar Association and ECOWAS have expressed interest in the case, describing it as a litmus test for judicial independence and executive overreach in Ghana.
“If due process is compromised in this instance, it will set a dangerous precedent for the entire West African region,” said Emeka Nwachukwu, a senior advisor at the African Legal Reform Institute.
What Happens Next
The High Court is expected to hear Chief Justice Torkornoo’s judicial review application in the coming weeks. If the court rules in her favor, it could alter the course of the investigative committee’s proceedings, potentially forcing a reconstitution or change in procedures.
In the meantime, the Article 146 committee continues its work behind closed doors at the government’s Adu Lodge facility, with sources indicating that several witnesses have already testified. Whether the committee will eventually recommend her removal or reinstatement remains to be seen.
Conclusion
The faceoff between Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo and the constitutional machinery designed to investigate her is testing the very fabric of Ghana’s democratic institutions. As public opinion polarizes and legal arguments deepen, the nation watches closely, aware that the outcome of this unprecedented saga could redefine the contours of judicial accountability and executive power.
For now, both Torkornoo and her critics – most notably Thaddeus Sory – are staking their reputations on the interpretation and application of a constitutional article that was never meant to handle this level of public scrutiny.
