A Fight for Justice in Ghana’s Courts

I was sipping tea at a roadside stall this morning, the kind where the air smells of roasted plantain and gossip flows as freely as the chatter, when I overheard two women talking about a court case in Accra. “The Attorney General wants to throw out Torkornoo’s suit,” one said, shaking her head. My ears perked up. A lawsuit against the Chief Justice? That’s the kind of news that makes you lean in, wondering what’s brewing in the halls of power. Ever catch wind of a story that feels like it’s peeling back the curtain on something bigger?

There’s a quiet intensity to this case that’s hard to ignore. Alexander Torkornoo, a lawyer, is suing Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo—no relation, despite the name—claiming she overstepped her authority by ordering the removal of court documents linked to a defamation case. The Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, isn’t having it. He’s filed to strike out the suit, calling it “incompetent” and a waste of the Supreme Court’s time. I can’t help but feel a mix of intrigue and unease. A lawyer taking on the head of Ghana’s judiciary? That’s bold. But is it reckless, too?

I think about my friend Kofi, who’s been tangled in a land dispute for years. He’d come home fuming about court delays, missing files, and judges who seemed untouchable. “The system protects its own,” he’d say, his voice heavy with frustration. Torkornoo’s case feels like it’s tapping into that same vein—questions about power, accountability, and who gets to decide what’s fair. The documents in question? They’re tied to a defamation suit involving a businessman and a media house, but the heart of it is bigger: can the Chief Justice unilaterally pull files from a case? Alexander says no, arguing it’s a breach of judicial independence. The AG says it’s all procedural, nothing to see here.

But here’s where it gets sticky. Ghana’s courts aren’t exactly known for being drama-free. I remember a story my aunt told me about a case in the ’90s, where a judge’s ruling sparked protests because people felt it shielded the powerful. This feels similar, doesn’t it? The AG’s motion to dismiss claims Alexander’s suit lacks legal grounding, but I wonder if it’s also about keeping the judiciary’s inner workings out of the spotlight. On X, people are split—some call Alexander a troublemaker, others a hero for challenging the status quo. My neighbor, a law student, thinks it’s a test of the system. “If the Chief Justice can’t be questioned,” she said, “then who can?”

It’s messy, human, real. Alexander’s not just fighting for himself; he’s raising a flag for anyone who’s ever felt the law bends one way for the big shots and another for the rest of us. But the AG’s not backing down, and with the Supreme Court set to hear the motion, I’m left wondering how this plays out. Will it fizzle, or will it spark a bigger reckoning? I can’t shake the image of Alexander, a lone lawyer, standing up to the system he’s part of. Takes guts, doesn’t it?

So, here’s where I land: this case isn’t just about documents or legal technicalities—it’s about trust in the system, about whether justice is for everyone or just a select few. I don’t know if Alexander’s right, but I admire his nerve. It makes me think about the times I’ve stayed quiet when I should’ve spoken up. What about you? When the powerful bend the rules, do you call it out, or do you let it slide, hoping the system sorts itself out?