In a rapidly changing world, the challenge of adhering to the law becomes more complex. Increasingly, we find ourselves in situations where public opinion calls for deviance from established legal norms. Yet, we must remind ourselves that “no matter how much noise is made, the law is the law.”

This truth serves both as a destination and as a compass on the often-turbulent journey toward justice.

In the unfolding Chief Justice saga, it appears that some are making a mountain out of a molehill, crying more than the bereaved as they dramatise the situation for all it is worth.
In efforts to gain attention, they make the loudest noise in a bid to draw the public eye to their narrative.

On 22nd April 2025, President Mahama suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo under Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, following the establishment of a prima facie case based on petitions for her removal.

The decision involved consultations with the Council of State, thereby adhering to constitutional guidelines. A five-member committee was subsequently formed to investigate the matter. According to Article 146, a Chief Justice can be removed from office for “stated misbehaviour” or “inability to perform the functions of the office.” Therefore, the procedure initiated by President Mahama is rooted in legal provisions and reflects a constitutional process that warrants a serious and impartial inquiry.

The New Patriotic Party (NPP) has vehemently opposed the suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo by President John Dramani Mahama.

The NPP's response, characterised by declarations of nationwide demonstrations and claims of an unfair attempt to politicise the judiciary, raises critical concerns about their motivations. The argument that the integrity of the judiciary is under threat is paradoxical, considering that such a robust reaction to a legal process may exacerbate the politicisation they claim to abhor.

The million-dollar question is: are they genuinely concerned about judicial integrity, or are they attempting to protect their political interests by framing the suspension as a politically motivated action?

While the NPP calls for protests and presents an image of urgency, it is essential to recognise that the investigative committee is yet to publicly disclose its findings. In the realm of law, judicial matters are governed by principles of due process, which demand patience and adherence to established legal procedures.

The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) has rightly emphasised the necessity to uphold the rule of law throughout this process. By launching demonstrations prior to any outcome from the committee, the NPP risks undermining the very judicial integrity they claim to defend.

The Ghanaian citizenry must question the motivations behind the NPP's actions. Why is it that prominent party members, including lawyers, have publicly dismissed the legitimacy of the petitions without waiting for the committee’s conclusions?

The legal profession is expected to uphold high ethical standards. Commentators—especially those trained in law—should refrain from making determinations on the merits of a case still under consideration, as doing so breaches the fundamental principle of impartiality and could be viewed as an attempt to sway public opinion during an ongoing investigation.

It is pitiful that some lawyers who ought to know better are participating in commenting on a case that is sub judice, influencing the result only for political reasons.

Furthermore, the intervention of the NPP calls into question its understanding of constitutional provisions and judicial independence. By asserting that they will not rest until the Chief Justice's suspension is reversed, they place undue pressure on the investigative committee, potentially compromising its integrity.

Judicial independence is a cornerstone of democracy; legal practitioners and political actors alike are called to respect this independence and the constitutional processes therein.

Rather than adopting a posture of resistance, the NPP and other political entities should promote an atmosphere conducive to objective examination and resolution of the issues at hand.

The outcome of the committee’s investigation must be respected, regardless of whether it aligns with the interests of any political party. The core function of the judiciary is to adjudicate impartially and ensure justice for all, which includes holding errant officials accountable, irrespective of their positions.

I must finally say, the NPP's reaction to Chief Justice Torkornoo’s suspension, while ostensibly aimed at protecting judicial integrity, appears instead to be an effort to secure political advantage amidst a legitimate constitutional process.

Let us remember that the essence of democracy lies not just in the challenge of authority, but also in upholding the institutions that safeguard our rights and liberties. Rather than allowing political narratives to cloud judgment, Ghanaians must support a thorough and impartial investigation, thereby strengthening our judicial system and reinforcing the rule of law.

After all, justice, in its truest form, must always transcend political affiliations.