A former Director of the Ghana School of Law, Kwaku Ansa-Asare, has criticised Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo's decision to file an injunction at the Supreme Court to stop the committee hearing her possible removal.

He described the move as a “provocation” that flies in the face of constitutional governance.

In an interview on JoyNews’ PM Express on Wednesday, May 21, the legal luminary said the Chief Justice’s first point of call should have been the Judicial Council, not the apex court.

“She should have gone to the Judicial Council,” he stated. “That body was created by the Constitution to help successive Chief Justices behave themselves. It is a counsel-seeking institution.”

Mr. Ansa-Asare said the Constitution is clear that while the judiciary is independent, that independence is itself subject to the Constitution.

“The clear language of Article 125 says even though citizens’ participation in the administration of justice must be encouraged, it is subject to the Constitution. So the independence of the judiciary is not absolute.”

He said her move to the Supreme Court, backed by a team of lawyers, is a calculated attempt to frustrate the work of the committee set up by the President under Article 146.

Read also: Suspended CJ Torkornoo files injunction against committee probing her removal

“This is a provocation,” he said. “Their acts are designed to provoke the members of the committee into doing things that will turn out to be unorthodox and unconstitutional.”

Mr Ansa-Asare, who has trained generations of Ghanaian lawyers, said the actions of the Chief Justice and her legal team are plunging the removal process into political waters.

“Now the CJ’s removal process is so engrossed in politics that transparency and legality are being opposed by the very people who should be defending the Constitution.”

Quoting constitutional law expert Professor Kofi Kumado, Ansa-Asare warned that democracy is not always synonymous with constitutionalism.

“Kofi Kumado once said democracy is not phenomenal with constitutionalism. The two are different,” he said.

“Sometimes when the Constitution says ‘shall,’ it means ‘shall.’ You don’t interpret it based on convenience.”

He lamented what he described as an emerging culture of constitutional manipulation by governance actors, including the judiciary.

“The governance institutions created by the Constitution are meant to help us behave ourselves, from the presidency to the media. The Judicial Council is no exception.”

Mr Ansa-Asare said he was not only disappointed by the Chief Justice’s approach, but also alarmed by what it could mean for future accountability.

“If a Chief Justice won’t even go to her own Judicial Council first when there’s a problem, what example is she setting?”