Professor Baffour Agyeman-Duah, a governance expert, has weighed in on the handling of the removal of Ghana’s Chief Justice, Gertrude Araba Torkonoo describing it as a critical low point in recent government actions.

Speaking on Joynews’ “The Pulse,” he acknowledged that while President John Dramani Mahama followed constitutional procedures, some decisions could have benefited from more discretion.

“I think they’ve done well. So the answer was the lowest point. Perhaps I will say and I’m very frank about this. The way in manner the government, the president handled the removal of the chief justice personally… he followed the rules, he followed the constitutional processes, but if I were him I would have paused it and used my own discretion in making certain moves on that,” he said.

Professor Agyeman-Duah’s comments come amid ongoing debates over judicial independence and the executive’s role in constitutional processes. The removal of the Chief Justice has been a polarizing issue, drawing attention from civil society groups, legal experts, and opposition politicians.

The expert emphasized that while the constitutional framework was respected, the perception and political handling of the process mattered as much as its legality. His remarks underline the importance of balancing strict adherence to rules with strategic discretion in high-stakes governance decisions.

Observers note that the episode has sparked broader discussions about checks and balances in Ghana’s democracy, particularly concerning the judiciary’s independence and the executive’s accountability. Professor Agyeman-Duah’s reflections add to the national conversation on how leaders navigate sensitive constitutional duties while maintaining public trust.