Governance expert and former UN Senior Governance Advisor, Prof Baffour Agyeman-Duah, has raised concerns over the timing and manner in which the Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkonoo, has been suspended by President John Mahama.

He suggests it casts a shadow over the integrity of the process and creates an impression of a political agenda.

Speaking in an interview on Joy FM's Middaynews on Wednesday, April 23, Prof Agyeman-Duah said the rushed nature of the suspension and its proximity to recent political declarations give room for speculation and public doubt.

“The issue of timing and the rush create an impression that perhaps the President has an agenda in this particular case,” he stated, referencing President Mahama’s earlier commentary about the judiciary on the campaign platform. “This becomes what you call a self-fulfilling prophecy. He said it, and now he’s doing it.”

His comment comes after President John Mahama suspended the Chief Justice after concluding that there are sufficient reasons to pursue further investigation, based on a petition filed by three individuals accusing the Chief Justice of misconduct and incompetence.

Read also: Mahama suspends Chief Justice after setting up committee to probe petitions

While acknowledging that the Constitution outlines a clear process for addressing allegations against a sitting Chief Justice and that the President appears to be operating within those legal boundaries, Prof Agyeman-Duah stressed that the optics and political context of the move are problematic.

He emphasised the importance of preserving the principle of separation of powers, warning that if partisan motives begin to drive actions against independent institutions, it could set a dangerous precedent.

“Even if the Chief Justice has serious cases to answer, that prejudice that was expressed earlier changes the whole thing. We are creating some kind of muddiness in this whole process.”

He further explained that his comments are not an attempt to exonerate the Chief Justice, but rather to highlight the need for caution and restraint in handling matters involving the judiciary, especially in a fragile democratic environment.