The Office of the Attorney General has opposed an application by Justice Gertrude Torkonoo seeking to suspend the ongoing proceedings for her removal as Chief Justice.

The Chief Justice on May 21, 2025 filed the injunction application after petitioning the Supreme Court to interpret relevant sections of the Constitution, arguing that she has the right to waive her privacy during the proceedings.

She also challenged the prima facie determination made against her without a reasoned ruling as unconstitutional, and sought orders to prevent the committee members from hearing the petitions.

In her injunction application, Justice Torkornoo claimed that the proceedings amount to a mockery of justice and are merely a ploy to unjustifiably remove her from office.

In response, the Attorney General defended the decision to conduct the proceedings in-camera, stating it is “a constitutional command geared at safeguarding not only the Chief Justice but the integrity of the entire judiciary.”

He argued that such confidentiality cannot be waived at will, as it serves a broader institutional purpose.

The response also addressed objections raised over the participation of two Supreme Court Justices—Justices Samuel Adibu Asiedu and Gabriel Scott Pwamang—in the committee overseeing the petition.

The Chief Justice had suggested their involvement could present a conflict of interest.

However, the Attorney General maintained there was “no basis in law” to restrain either judge from participating.

In the case of Justice Asiedu, it was emphasised that he “did not participate in the injunction hearing” and thus cannot be disqualified on that ground.

As for Justice Pwamang, the Attorney General rejected allegations of bias, asserting that his involvement in past cases brought by one of the petitioners “cannot constitute evidence of bias” without more substantive proof.

In response to claims by the Chief Justice that some committee members had not properly taken the oath of office, the Attorney General flatly refuted the assertion, stating that “members of the committee have taken the necessary oath of office” as required by law.

The Attorney General concluded that “a case for injunction has not been made out”, effectively arguing that there is no legal basis to halt or alter the ongoing proceedings against Justice Torkonoo.