The Supreme Court has set April 2, 2025, to hear an injunction application filed by New Patriotic Party (NPP) Member of Parliament for Old Tafo, Vincent Assafuah, against the procedure being used by the President to potentially remove the Chief Justice from office following the receipt of three petitions.

This decision comes shortly after the Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkonoo, wrote a letter to the President and copied other stakeholders, demanding copies of the three petitions seeking her removal from office.

The CJ's request came shortly after the suit by the Old Tafo MP at the Supreme Court questioning the procedure being used to handle the petitions.

In the view of the plaintiff, who is being represented by Godfred Dame, the former Attorney-General, a Chief Justice ought to be alerted of the petitions to give a response before the President can consult the Council of State on the petitions.

The Minister for Government Communications, Felix Kwakye Ofosu, confirmed that the three petitions have been forwarded to the Council of State in line with Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution.

While the specific grounds for the petitions remain undisclosed, the process marks the first step in a constitutional procedure that could lead to significant changes in Ghana’s judiciary.

The Council of State is expected to review the petitions and provide guidance to the President on the appropriate course of action.

In her letter to the President on Thursday, March 27, Chief Justice Torkornoo requested a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against her before further steps are taken.

“I am by this letter humbly and respectfully asking His Excellency the President and eminent members of the Council of State to forward the petitions against me to me, and allow me at least seven days after receipt of same, to provide my response to you, which response can then form part of the material that you conduct the consultations anticipated under 146 (6), before the possible setting up of a Committee of Inquiry under Article 146 (7),” she stated.

Assafuah, acting as a concerned citizen under Article 2(1)(b) of the 1992 Constitution, seeks several declarations from the Supreme Court, whose original jurisdiction he is invoking, regarding the interpretation of constitutional provisions governing the removal of a Chief Justice.

The suit argues that the President must notify the Chief Justice and obtain the comments of the Chief Justice before initiating consultation with the Council of State on the matter.

Reliefs sought by the plaintiff

The plaintiff requests the court to declare that:

The President must notify the Chief Justice and obtain their comments before referring a removal petition to the Council of State, as per Articles 146(1), (2), (4), (6), and (7), 23, 57(3), and 296 of the Constitution.

Failure to notify the Chief Justice before initiating the consultation process with the Council of State is a violation of Article 146(6) and undermines the constitutional protection of the Chief Justice’s security of tenure.

Any omission in this process amounts to unjustified interference with the independence of the judiciary, contravening Articles 127(1) and (2) of the Constitution.

The President’s failure to obtain the Chief Justice’s comments before triggering the removal process violates the right to a fair hearing, rendering the consultation process null and void.

Any other reliefs deemed appropriate by the Court.