Ghana’s President Faces Backlash Over Suspension of Chief Justice

By Ollus Ndomu

Ghanaian President John Mahama is facing mounting criticism following his unprecedented decision to suspend Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, a move that has stirred political tensions and raised questions about judicial independence in the West African nation.

The suspension, confirmed by the presidency late Thursday, comes amid an ongoing investigation into unspecified allegations involving the Chief Justice. Government officials insist the suspension is a procedural necessity while the inquiry is underway. However, critics, including former Attorney General Gloria Akuffo, have accused the administration of using the investigation as a pretext to undermine the judiciary.

“This action sets a dangerous precedent,” Akuffo said in a statement. “It appears calculated to weaken one of the last independent institutions in our democracy.”

The Ghanaian constitution stipulates that a Chief Justice may only be removed on narrowly defined grounds—such as proven incompetence or misconduct—and only following a thorough investigation and formal proceedings. This is the first time a sitting Chief Justice in Ghana has been suspended under such circumstances.

Justice Torkornoo, who was appointed in 2023, has not publicly commented on the matter. She has been widely regarded as a firm yet impartial figure on Ghana’s highest bench.

Civil society groups and legal experts have called for transparency and due process. “While no one is above the law, the process must be fair, apolitical, and free from executive interference,” said Kojo Asante, director of advocacy at Ghana’s Center for Democratic Development (CDD).

The suspension has sparked protests among opposition supporters and members of the legal community, with some warning that it could erode public trust in Ghana’s democratic institutions.

As the investigation continues, pressure is mounting on President Mahama’s administration to disclose the nature of the allegations and to reaffirm its commitment to judicial independence.

The presidency has not indicated when the inquiry will conclude or whether a tribunal has been constituted to hear the case.

About The Author