Constitutional Supremacy or Judicial Exceptionalism: The Torkornoo Precedent.

Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo's unprecedented public statement on 25 June 2025 has crystallised a fundamental constitutional question: Does judicial office confer immunity from constitutional compliance?

Her detailed exposition of Article 146 proceedings, whilst generating public sympathy, constitutes an independent constitutional breach requiring rigorous institutional response to safeguard our constitution and democracy. She falsely assumed Article 146 is about her, Torkornoo instead of The Office she held.

Article 146(8) of the 1992 Constitution provides unambiguous direction: "All proceedings under this article shall be held in camera." This provision establishes mandatory confidentiality without discretionary exceptions, protecting judicial removal proceedings' integrity whilst ensuring procedural fairness.

Chief Justice Torkornoo's comprehensive public statement directly contravenes this constitutional mandate through detailed disclosure of petition contents, procedural allegations, and substantive responses. Her naming of petitioners Daniel Ofori, Ayamga Akolgo, and "Shinning Stars," combined with extensive commentary on proceedings' conduct, constitutes wilful noncompliance with Article 146(8)'s explicit requirements.

Previous media coverage cannot vitiate constitutional compliance obligations. Article 146(8) governs official proceedings, establishing binding requirements for all participants including the investigation subject.

Article 1(2) establishes constitutional supremacy: "This Constitution shall be the supreme law of Ghana, and any other law found to be inconsistent with any provision of this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void." This supremacy admits no exceptions based on office, sympathy, or perceived justification.

Article 17(1) reinforces universal application: "All persons shall be equal before the law." The Chief Justice, despite legitimate grievances regarding procedural irregularities, remains subject to constitutional requirements. Her conduct effectively asserts judicial exceptionalism contradicting fundamental constitutional principles.

Article 146(1) permits removal for "stated misbehaviour or incompetence or on ground of inability to perform the functions of his office arising from infirmity of body or mind." The Chief Justice's wilful violation of Article 146(8) constitutes clear "stated misbehaviour" requiring no additional evidentiary foundation beyond her documented public statement.

This represents constitutional breach rather than procedural misjudgement. Her public disclosure demonstrates deliberate defiance of explicit constitutional commands, establishing independent removal grounds separate from original petition allegations. Such conduct need not appear in initial petitions to warrant committee consideration.

The investigating committee possesses constitutional authority to examine misconduct emerging during proceedings that undermines constitutional processes. Committee members bear obligations to address violations threatening procedural integrity.

The Judicial Oath requires justices to "uphold, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Ghana." Chief Justice Torkornoo's public defiance of Article 146(8) constitutes oath repudiation inconsistent with constitutional fidelity requirements.

Her conduct demonstrates wilful disregard for constitutional obligations, striking at moral foundations supporting judicial authority. Such repudiation parallels grounds for presidential removal under Article 69(1)(a), suggesting equivalent accountability standards for constitutional violations.

Article 2(1) permits Supreme Court declarations regarding constitutional violations for actions "inconsistent with, or in contravention of a provision of this Constitution." The Chief Justice's public statement clearly falls within this provision's scope.

Article 2(4) establishes consequences for constitutional violations, declaring that failure to obey constitutional directives "constitutes a high crime under this Constitution." These accountability mechanisms reflect constitutional framers' understanding that democratic governance requires universal constitutional adherence regardless of office.

The Chief Justice's grievances regarding procedural irregularities merit judicial review through appropriate constitutional channels. Article 33(1) permits High Court applications for constitutional enforcement, whilst Article 130(1) grants Supreme Court original jurisdiction over constitutional interpretation.

However, constitutional remedies cannot justify constitutional violations. The Chief Justice possessed judicial avenues for constitutional protection without resorting to public statements violating Article 146(8).

Constitutional democracy requires adherence to established processes even when those processes appear flawed. The rule of law depends upon universal constitutional compliance rather than individual determinations of constitutional validity.

The Presidency correctly observed that "every single public official from the president to the speaker to the chief justice... are bound by the provisions of Ghanaian law." When judicial officers step outside constitutional frameworks, democratic governance faces existential threat.

Chief Justice Torkornoo's public statement, whilst reflecting legitimate procedural concerns, constitutes undeniable constitutional breach requiring institutional response. Constitutional democracy cannot survive if judicial officers claim exemption from constitutional obligations based on personal grievances.

The investigating committee should consider her public statement as independent grounds for removal under "stated misbehaviour" provisions. The Supreme Court should exercise original jurisdiction to clarify constitutional obligations and ensure universal compliance.

The choice transcends individual personalities to encompass constitutional supremacy, judicial accountability, and democratic governance. The rule of law demands that no person stands above constitutional requirements. Ghana's democratic future depends upon institutional courage to enforce constitutional obligations universally, ensuring constitutional supremacy remains surpasses aspirational rhetoric.

Issaka Sannie – Farakhan.
Zongo Caucus Coordinator Uk & I.

   Comments0