In a dramatic twist to the ongoing legal saga surrounding the suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, the Supreme Court of Ghana has struck out a contentious injunction application that sought to halt proceedings on the petitions for her removal. The ruling, delivered in a narrow 3–2 majority on Tuesday, 6 May 2025, has stirred intense public and professional debate—drawing praise and protest in equal measure.
Legal expert and former Director of the Ghana School of Law, Kwaku Ansa-Asare, has thrown his weight behind the ruling, describing it as legally sound and constitutionally justified. In an interview with Joy News shortly after the verdict, Mr Ansa-Asare argued that the application lacked substantial merit and that the Supreme Court was right to dismiss it without delay.
He stated that Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie had every right, both legally and administratively, to empanel and even sit on the matter, citing the constitutional provisions that empower the most senior judge of the apex court to assume full authority in the absence of the substantive Chief Justice. According to Mr Ansa-Asare, this role includes the assignment of cases and the constitution of judicial panels.
Mr Ansa-Asare dismissed concerns over Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s role as speculative and without legal foundation. He emphasised that while moral arguments may be raised, they do not equate to legal compulsion, asserting that the Constitution’s clarity on the matter should supersede subjective concerns.
“There is an acting Chief Justice, and administratively, he—and he alone—has the authority in matters of empanelling or composing justices to sit on this matter,” he explained. “In the absence of the Chief Justice, the most senior justice of the Supreme Court must carry out that duty. No one can fault the acting Chief Justice for deciding to sit.”
The injunction application, filed as part of a broader legal challenge to the Chief Justice’s suspension, had argued that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s leadership of the panel was inappropriate. The petitioners, represented by former Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame on behalf of the Member of Parliament for Tafo, Vincent Ekow Assafuah, contended that the acting Chief Justice stood to benefit from the suspension, making his role in the case ethically questionable.
Mr Dame cited the precedent of former Chief Justice Georgina Wood, who had voluntarily recused herself from certain cases due to political associations. He argued that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, appointed as acting CJ during the period of suspension, should have taken similar steps to preserve public confidence in the judiciary.
However, that argument was unanimously rejected by the court following a brief recess. The panel ruled that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s participation in the matter was not only lawful but necessary under the circumstances.
The Court’s decision highlighted a legal concept known as the doctrine of necessity. This principle allows a judicial officer to take action in situations where their involvement is required to ensure the administration of justice. Mr Ansa-Asare was quick to reference this doctrine, reinforcing the notion that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s presence on the panel was a constitutional necessity rather than a discretionary act.
He also noted that fairness should not be misconstrued in this context. “If she [Gertrude Torkornoo] had not been suspended and chosen to sit, she would not have erred. In like manner, if the acting Chief Justice chooses to sit, he has not erred. So, the issue of fairness does not arise—it is a constitutional mandate.”
The bench for the matter includes Justices Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Yonny Kulendi, Amadu Tanko, and Ernest Gaewu. Justices Mensa-Bonsu and Gaewu dissented in the decision, but the majority held that the case should proceed without delay.
Observers have since noted that the acting Chief Justice is not the only potential beneficiary of the Chief Justice’s suspension. As Mr Ansa-Asare pointed out, all sitting justices of the Supreme Court could, in theory, benefit from a vacancy at the top of the judiciary. This, he argued, makes it unreasonable to single out Justice Baffoe-Bonnie for scrutiny.
The ruling has set a significant precedent for judicial authority and succession in Ghana’s legal framework. It underscores the delicate balance between legal interpretation and public perception in high-profile constitutional matters. As the case continues to unfold, legal minds and the general public will be closely watching for its broader implications on judicial independence and the rule of law.
blogpay
Total Comments: 0