University of Ghana law lecturer, Prof Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua, says the process leading to the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo strictly adhered to constitutional provisions.

Speaking on JoyNews’ Pulse, Prof Appiagyei-Atua said it will be difficult to point out legal lapses that might have influenced President John Mahama's September 1 move.

“From the constitutional angle, due process was followed,” he stated, adding that the outcome was expected.

“It was a foregone conclusion looking at the way proceedings went.”

Prof. Appiagyei-Atua noted that while the political implications of the decision are open to interpretation, constitutionally, the President acted within the law after receiving the Article 146 Committee’s recommendation.

He further defended Justice Torkornoo’s approach during the inquiry, describing her confrontational posture as a legitimate fight for her rights.

“She had to fight for her rights,” he stressed, adding that her decision to challenge aspects of the process at the Human Rights Court was also justified.

However, former Director of the Ghana School of Law, Kwaku Ansa-Asare, took a different view.

He argued that the Chief Justice’s style of engagement contributed to her downfall.

“Her confrontational attitude made it impossible for her to be reinstated as Chief Justice,” he said, insisting that her posture strained relations with key actors.

The Chairman of the Article 146 Committee of Inquiry formally presented its first report on petitions seeking the removal of Chief Justice to President John Mahama today.

• Read also: Chief Justice suspension: Committee adjourns hearing of 2nd petition against Torkornoo

The Committee, after reviewing testimonies and extensive evidence, concluded that grounds of stated misbehavior under Article 146(1) had been established against the Chief Justice.

In all, about 10,000 pages of documentary evidence were tendered by both parties, with each side represented by four lawyers.

The Chairman stressed that the Committee’s deliberations were conducted with fairness, noting that “after critical and dispassionate examination and assessment of all the evidence… we have, without fear or favour, arrived at a recommendation on the first petition.”

The sealed recommendation was then handed over to the President.