A prominent legal scholar, Professor Kwaku Asare, has argued that Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo’s recent public statements about her removal proceedings constitute a separate and independent ground for her removal from office. Writing from Singapore, Professor Asare contends that the Chief Justice’s June 25 press conference violated Article 146(😎 of the Constitution, which mandates that all removal proceedings “shall be held in camera.”
*Constitutional Argument*
Professor Asare emphasizes the binding nature of this constitutional directive, arguing that as Ghana’s apex judicial officer, the Chief Justice is under “heightened obligation” to comply with every constitutional provision. He notes that the Chief Justice’s public commentary directly contravenes the constitutional requirement for confidentiality.
*A Separate Ground for Removal*
Perhaps most significantly, Professor Asare contends that this alleged constitutional violation represents a new and independent basis for removal, separate from the original three petitions that triggered the current proceedings. “The wilful violation of a direct constitutional command—especially one governing the process of her own potential removal—constitutes a clear and self-contained instance of stated misbehaviour,” he argues.
*Presidential Parallel*
To underscore his argument, Professor Asare draws a parallel with presidential removal provisions, noting that Article 69(1)(a) permits removing a President for “wilful violation of the oath of allegiance” or “any other provision of this Constitution.” “If the Constitution permits the removal of a President for wilfully violating their oath or any constitutional provision, it cannot be argued that the Chief Justice, who swears an equivalent constitutional oath, should be held to a lower standard,” he writes.
*Constitutional Supremacy at Stake*
The scholar frames the issue as fundamental to Ghana’s constitutional order, arguing that selective compliance with constitutional provisions by the highest judicial officer threatens the rule of law itself. “If the Chief Justice is permitted to violate Article 146(😎, we must ask: are constitutional provisions still binding? Are Supreme Court orders still authoritative?” Asare questions.
The development adds another layer of complexity to what is already Ghana’s most significant judicial crisis since 1992. The Supreme Court has already upheld the Chief Justice’s suspension five times, while the Chief Justice maintains she will not resign and continues to challenge what she describes as a flawed process.