General

Supreme Court Dismisses CenCES Case Against Chief Justice’s Suspension

Accra: The Supreme Court has dismissed a suit challenging Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo's suspension and seeking to halt the committee investigating petitions against her. In a 4-1 majority decision, the Court ruled that the action by the Centre for Citizenship, Constitutional and Electoral Systems (CenCES) to reverse President John Dramani Mahama's suspension of the Chief Justice was unmeritorious.

According to Ghana News Agency, the five-member panel, led by Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, has scheduled May 29, 2025, to provide full reasons for the ruling. The majority decision was supported by Justices Baffoe-Bonnie, Omoro Tanko, Yonni Kulendi, and Henry Kwofie, while Justice Yaw Asare Darko dissented.

CenCES, an advocacy group, argued that President Mahama's suspension of the Chief Justice violated the Constitution and was unconstitutional. The group contended that the suspension breached Articles 125 and 127, which guarantee judicial independence, and claimed due process was not followed, making the move unfair. It sought an order from the Supreme Court to stop the ongoing Investigative Committee.

Deputy Attorney General Dr Justice Srem Sai opposed the application, stating that due process had been followed and the suit was misconceived. Chief Justice Torkornoo was represented by her husband, Mr. Francis Kofi Torkornoo.

In a related ruling, the same panel dismissed an application filed by Theodore Kofi Atta-Quartey, a private citizen. Atta-Quartey, represented by his lawyer Joseph Bondzie Afrifa, petitioned the Supreme Court to halt the President's warrant and suspension. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the Committee of Inquiry's proceedings under Article 146 (6) must follow clearly defined procedures, powers, and limitations set out in a constitutional instrument. He also requested court orders to protect judicial independence.

Mr. Afrifa urged the Supreme Court to halt the Investigative Committee's work, arguing that its process was not time-bound, and stopping it would not amount to a miscarriage of justice.