In the ongoing discourse surrounding the potential removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, it is imperative to separate constitutional procedure from emotional sentiment. President John Dramani Mahama’s actions are firmly anchored in the constitutional framework of the Republic of Ghana. Any grievances concerning the fairness or propriety of the process must be directed at the structure of the law itself, not at its faithful execution.
The procedure for the removal of the Chief Justice is governed explicitly by Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution. Upon the filing of a petition, the President refers the matter to the Council of State for advice. Following the Council’s counsel, the President appoints a committee comprising two Justices of the Supreme Court, one Justice of the Court of Appeal, and two other persons of high moral character and proven integrity to investigate the petition. Critically, Article 146(8) empowers the President to suspend the Chief Justice pending the outcome of the inquiry. The suspension is not a matter of personal discretion; it is an act taken in conformity with constitutional dictates once the prescribed procedural steps are satisfied.
It is therefore a fundamental misapprehension to suggest that President Mahama’s role is politically motivated or legally unwarranted. On the contrary, he is discharging a constitutional duty, as mandated by the supreme law of the land. As a former Chief Justice of Ghana aptly noted, “The law is the law.” In a constitutional democracy, strict adherence to the processes laid down by the Constitution—even when politically inconvenient or emotionally charged—forms the bedrock of governance.
Moreover, the notion of judicial accountability within a constitutional framework is neither unique to Ghana nor unprecedented globally. In the United States, for instance, a Chief Justice may be subjected to impeachment proceedings initiated by the House of Representatives and adjudicated by the Senate. Similarly, Ghana’s unicameral Parliament, if required under constitutional procedures, would serve as the forum for ultimate accountability following the committee’s findings. Given the current parliamentary composition, it is conceivable that the removal of the Chief Justice could be effected should the process so demand. Nonetheless, such an outcome would be a product of constitutional democracy at work—not executive overreach.
In moments of constitutional contention, fidelity to the text and spirit of the law must be our guiding principle. If there is a widely held belief that the current process is flawed or inadequate, the remedy lies not in impugning those who lawfully act under its authority, but in seeking constitutional reforms through legitimate avenues such as the Constitutional Review Commission.
Until such reforms are undertaken, Ghanaians remain bound by the Constitution as it stands—not by wishful interpretations, public sentiment, or political expediency. Justice, especially at the highest levels of governance, must be dispensed according to law, not emotion.
Source: Sankofaonline
