Suspended Chief Justice, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Torkornoo, has forcefully argued that Ghana’s 1992 Constitution offers clear protection for certain high-ranking public officials, referred to as Article 146 officeholders, against arbitrary dismissal by any authority, including the Executive and Legislature.

Speaking at a press conference on Wednesday, June 25, Justice Torkornoo explained that the framers of the Constitution intentionally insulated key public officers from undue political influence to preserve the independence of state institutions and uphold democratic governance.

“In building Ghana’s democracy in the Fourth Republic, the framers of the Constitution identified public officials who must directly serve the citizens of Ghana without being afraid of unjustified punishment or reprisals from influential people or members of the Executive or Legislature,” she stated.

According to her, such officials include justices of the Superior Courts, the Auditor-General, Commissioners of CHRAJ, the NCCE, and the Public Services Commission.

“The law did not provide for the termination of their appointments by any authority. The Constitution set up grounds and processes for removing them from office under Article 146, and these grounds must reach the standard of ‘inability to perform the functions of their office,’” she stated.

Her comments come in the wake of her suspension on April 22, 2025, following three petitions alleging misconduct, petitions which President John Mahama deemed sufficient to trigger an investigative process under Article 146(6). A five-member committee was subsequently constituted to probe the claims, but the process has since been clouded by legal and constitutional controversy.

Justice Torkornoo revealed she had requested that the committee's hearings be held in public to promote transparency and allow Ghanaians to see the nature of the allegations.

“I applied for the proceedings of the committee set up by His Excellency the President to be held in public so that in the interest of transparency and for the truth in the matters being raised, the people of Ghana will be made aware,” she said.

She argued that the confidentiality provisions of Article 146 were never intended to conceal questionable conduct by the state or to facilitate opaque proceedings against officeholders protected by the Constitution.

Justice Torkornoo further contended that none of the allegations against her relate to matters of national interest, public order, or her ability to perform her official duties.

“I realised that in my case, should the public be made aware of the allegations in the petition, they would realise that none of the allegations… [are] matters of national interest or matters of public order or safety, or anything that indicates that I’m unable to perform the functions,” she added.

She also described the ongoing inquiry as psychologically and procedurally unjust, claiming that she was subjected to degrading treatment, including body searches, confiscation of personal devices, and restrictions placed on her family during hearings held at the Osu Castle.

“Ghana has come too far not to be concerned about the unconstitutionalities that have been designed not to affect just me personally as Chief Justice, but all judges and public officers subject to the removal processes of Article 146,” she warned.

Justice Torkornoo has filed legal actions, including an application for judicial review at the High Court, challenging the legitimacy and transparency of the process. Her case is now shaping up to be a test of Ghana’s constitutional safeguards around the removal of top public officials.