Former Attorney General Ayikoi Otoo has dismissed the grounds for the removal of former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, insisting there is no evidence of wrongdoing to justify her dismissal.

Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Monday, September 1, after President John Mahama announced her removal with immediate effect on grounds of stated misbehaviour, Mr. Otoo questioned the very basis of the decision.

“When these entitlements come, it is not for you to determine anything. You are just to determine whether you want to travel. So when you tell them that I intend to take my vacation in Arusha, Tanzania, then the officers will work on whatever is your entitlement and bring it to you. This is nothing new. As Attorney General, as an ambassador, that is what they do. They work out and bring it to you. You are not involved,” he explained.

He stressed that the former Chief Justice was fully within her rights. “So it is for them to look at the policy. What is the policy? Are you entitled to per diem? They will tell you yes, you are entitled to per diem. If you are travelling with somebody, is that person also entitled to some per diem? They say yes, and so they are working and bringing it to you.

"What wrong did the Chief Justice commit for asking to go on a usual vacation as part of the conditions of service and saying that, well, I intend to go to Arusha. And then the judicial secretary, the head of finance travels, all those who have anything to do with travel, work on it and give the Chief Justice what is the entitlement?”

Mr. Otoo accused the committee of deliberately ignoring established policy.

“And again, as I said, there is a travel policy for the judiciary; they never refer to it. And that travel policy, the committee didn’t refer to it. They didn’t refer to it, although we tendered it. That, look, this is the travel policy. She’s entitled to travel with a person of her own choice, and she chose to do this.

"Remember that there have been other Chief Justices, some of them who had no spouses, and, therefore, the law, as at the time, was that you could go with, if it’s not your spouse, any person of your own choice.”

He argued that the issue was wrongly framed as misconduct.

“And so what wrong did the Chief Justice commit? Was she the one who asked that she be given travel expenses? Is she not entitled to the travel expenses? And as I keep asking, when you are in that office and you have to travel.

"Is it for you to determine I want this or that? It is for the organisation to work it and give it to you, assuming it was wrongly given to you. Is that not why you have an audit? Is it not the case for auditors to say that we think that you should be surcharged with a certain amount which you took unlawfully? Is it a ground for removal?”

The former AG insisted responsibility did not lie with the Chief Justice.

He expressed shock at the committee’s recommendation.

“And I’m surprised Domelovo was on it. He sat through it. He heard us. We made presentations to him. And he, in the midst of all, in the face of all this, comes out to say that she has misappropriated money. Which money?”