AG moves to dismiss suspended Chief Justice’s fresh bid to halt removal proceedings

The Office of the Attorney-General has moved to have a fresh judicial review application by suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo thrown out, arguing that it is without merit and should not obstruct the ongoing constitutional process for her possible removal.

The application, filed on June 23, 2025, challenges one of the three petitions against Justice Torkornoo — specifically the one submitted by a group calling itself the Shining Stars of Ghana. Her lawyers maintain the petition is invalid because the group is not registered and its members are unidentified.

Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, however, insists these claims are unfounded and cannot halt the work of the committee established under Article 146 of the Constitution. In court filings, the state argues that the motion should be dismissed entirely.

“A body of persons — whether named or not named and, if named, by whichever name — needs not be incorporated or registered to exist at law,” an affidavit deposed to by State Attorney Reginald Nii Odoi states.

This marks the suspended Chief Justice’s second attempt to use judicial review to stop the proceedings. An earlier bid sought to quash all three petitions and suspend the Justice Pawmang Committee’s work, alleging breaches of natural justice. That attempt was dismissed by the High Court for being an abuse of process and for lack of jurisdiction.

While an interpretation matter tied to the case is still before the Supreme Court, a related injunction application was also rejected, clearing the way for the Article 146 proceedings to continue.

In response to Justice Torkornoo’s latest motion, the Attorney-General stressed that the issues she has raised fall squarely within the confidential remit of the Article 146 process, which is constitutionally required to be conducted in camera.

“The issues raised by the originating motion are not admissible in this Honourable Court,” the AG’s office argued, reaffirming its position that the High Court has no jurisdiction over matters arising under Article 146.