Justice and the Constitution: A Nation at a Crossroads

In the past days, Ghana has been drawn into a legal and political whirlwind following the suspension of the Chief Justice. At the centre of this upheaval is a fundamental misunderstanding—or deliberate misrepresentation—of the constitutional provisions that guide the removal of a sitting Chief Justice under the 1992 Constitution. It is not only shocking but deeply troubling that many who claim to be defenders of democracy and constitutionalism are suddenly allergic to the constitutional process when it does not favour their political alignment.

Let us begin by restating the law. Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana clearly outlines the procedure for removing a Chief Justice. When a petition is submitted to the President for the removal of a Justice of the Superior Court or the Chief Justice, the President is mandated to forward the petition to the Chief Justice (or the next most senior justice when the CJ is the subject). The Chief Justice—or the next most senior justice—then determines whether a prima facie case has been established. Where such a case is made, the President is required to suspend the officeholder and, in consultation with the Council of State, appoint a committee to investigate the matter.

This process is neither arbitrary nor subject to political whims. It is designed to protect the sanctity of the judiciary while ensuring accountability. Yet, in the wake of the suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, what we are witnessing is not a legal argument but political theatre. A parade of politically aligned voices have taken to the airwaves, accusing the President of overreach and claiming this act threatens judicial independence. These voices, some under the cloak of civil society organisations (CSOs) and others as former legal professionals, are not defending the Constitution—they are defending entrenched interests.

Let us be clear: the petitions before the President are not a matter of political revenge. They include allegations of financial misconduct and the mishandling of judicial administrative processes. One of the most troubling accusations is the expenditure of state funds on non-official personal items. If even a fraction of these allegations hold water, it undermines the moral and ethical fabric expected of the nation’s top judge.

It is curious how the same individuals and organisations who were thunderously silent when former President Akufo-Addo dismissed key state officers such as Electoral Commissioner Charlotte Osei and Auditor-General Daniel Domelevo through the same constitutional process, are now weeping crocodile tears over a procedure that is clearly within the confines of the Constitution. Were these same individuals asleep when Domelevo was hounded out on frivolous retirement age claims? Or when Charlotte Osei was removed amid a media circus orchestrated by partisan actors?

The double standards reek of selective amnesia and expose the hypocrisy of some so-called defenders of democracy. If the Constitution was legitimate in those cases, why does it suddenly become a tool of tyranny when the same process is applied today?

To the naysayers, one must ask: Should the Chief Justice be above the law? If a Minister or civil servant were to be accused of similar misconduct, would we not demand accountability? How much more for the person who presides over the nation’s highest court?

Ghanaians are not fools. The days of using civil society as a proxy for partisan interests are fast fading. The Alliance for Accountable Governance (AFAG), which now cries foul, was eerily silent through eight years of egregious corruption and governance abuse under the last administration. Their sudden rediscovery of civic vigilance is suspicious at best and dishonest at worst.

It is time to put Ghana first. We cannot build a robust democracy by shielding high-ranking officials from accountability. Nor can we allow political sympathisers masquerading as neutral actors to confuse the public. The rule of law must prevail—not the rule of politically expedient emotion.

This is not a witch-hunt. This is a constitutionally mandated process. It is time to stop the theatrics, respect the legal process, and allow the truth to emerge through the due processes of the Constitution.

If the Chief Justice is innocent, the process will exonerate her. But if she is guilty, then Ghana must be courageous enough to say: No one is above the law—not even the head of the judiciary.

Let the law work. Let justice take its course.