|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Petition by Daniel Ofori
According to the petition of Daniel Ofori, first, “In 2023, the Honourable Chief Justice misappropriated the sum of GHS 261, 890.00 of public funds for the benefit of the Chief Justice for her private foreign travel with her husband, Mr Francis Kofi Torkornoo, and her daughter Miss Edem S.A. Torkornoo and US$30,000 in per diem allowance when, to her knowledge, neither the husband of the Chief Justice nor the Chief Justice’s daughter were entitled to have their travel or any travel allowances paid for out of the funds of the Judicial Service.
Second, “In 2023, the Honourable Chief Justice misappropriated GHS75,580.00 from public funds to purchase Ethiopian Airlines tickets for the Honourable Chief Justice and her husband during Her Ladyship’s vacation to Arusha, Tanzania.
Third, “In 2023, Her Ladyship the Honourable Chief Justice obtained from the Judicial Service an accountable imprest in the sum of $14,000.00 to the Honourable Chief Justice to travel with her husband to Arusha, Tanzania, which she failed to retire. There are 18 other allegations in Daniel Ofori’s petition.
CJ Response to Daniel Ofori
The Chief Justice, in her response to the first three of the 21 accusations by Daniel Ofori, responded as follows: “The petitioner alleges that as Chief Justice, I misappropriated the sum of Gh¢261, 890.00 of public funds for my private foreign travel with her husband Mr Francis Torkornoo and my daughter Miss Edem Torkornoo when according to him, neither person was entitled to have their travel paid for out of the funds of the Judicial Service of Ghana.
“My humble response is that the allegation is an unfortunate untruth. Please find herewith the following evidence. Paragraph B1 of the “POLICY ON FOREIGN TRAVELS BY HEAD OF THE JUDICIARY AND SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES,” provides for two holidays for the Chief Justice in a year, with travel expenses, hotel accommodation, and per diem to be borne by the Judicial Service and capped at 14 days per round trip.
Paragraph A (9) provides that “The Chief Justice shall undertake unlimited official travels with either his/her Spouse or other person of his/her choice in a year, fully funded by the Judicial Service.”
Paragraph A (10) provides that “Where the Spouse or other person accompanies the Chief Justice, he/she shall travel on the same class of air ticket as the Chief Justice and shall be paid the equivalent of half the per diem paid to the Chief Justice.”
“This has been the policy of the Judicial Service since 2010, as amended in 2019. Exhibit DO (4) is a response to the audit observation provided by the Judicial Secretary to auditors who sought clarification on the expenditure on the ticket purchased for my husband and daughter during my two holidays in 2023.
“On page 1 of Exhibit DO 4, the Judicial Secretary clarified that, as Chief Justice, I opted to utilize the authorization in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Travel Policy to travel with my spouse and my daughter during my two holidays in September 2023—pursuant to the conditions of appointment of the Chief Justice.
“In view of this option, there was no infraction occasioned when I opted to travel for my two holidays with my spouse on one occasion and my daughter on the second occasion. The Response to Observation 1 and Response to Observation 2 of exhibit DO4 provides an explanation of the expenditure on tickets for my husband and daughter that the petitioner has unfortunately described as misappropriation of public funds by the Chief Justice.
“Response on Page 3 of Exhibit DO4 further confirms that contrary to the unfortunate allegation that I failed to retire imprest of $14,000 given to me for my travel, I spent an amount of $4,411 out of the said imprest and retired the remaining $9,588.20. I also attach herewith exhibit DO 5 in further proof of the retirement of that imprest on 14 September 2023, on my second day at work after the said journey.
“In September 2023, I fell ill from exhaustion when I arrived in Arusha and had to return to Ghana a day early to ensure that I had one full day to journey to Cape Coast for the annual conference of the Ghana Bar Association. This led to a change and re-routing of my return journey to Ghana through Ethiopian Airlines. Page 4 of Exhibit DO 4 provides information on this.
“It is therefore unfortunate that the Petitioner, an outsider to the records of Judicial Service, should create the wrong presentation of this expenditure used for the purchase of tickets for the Chief Justice.
“I wish to state that as Chief Justice, I neither purchase travel tickets, nor determine the per diem issued to me or issued to the aides, security, or persons who are required to travel with me. Neither do I authorize the per diem given to me for any journey.
“The said per diem is determined in accordance with rates set by the Article 71 Committee on Emoluments for the Chief Justice of the Republic. It is also administered by the Judicial Secretary and the Director of Finance of the Judicial Service.
“I am therefore incapable of misappropriating any public funds with respect to a ticket purchased for me or the person accompanying me on a journey, or the per diem issued. Indeed, I am not signatory to any account and do not have access to the accounts of the Judicial Service,” the Chief Justice’s response read.
CJ’s Removal: Ayamga Akolgo’s Petition, CJ’s responses
The Chief Justice Getrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, has been suspended from office by President John Dramani Mahama, effective Tuesday, 22 April 2025.
The President’s actions, which are said to be grounded in Article 146 (10) of the 1992 constitution, were largely inspired by some three petitions that the President received seeking the removal of the Chief Justice from office.
Read the petition and responses by the CJ to the petition by AYAMGA YAKUBU AKOLGO.
Ayamga Akolgo’s Petition
The third petition by the senior police officer, Ayamga Akolgo, among others, states, “This is my respectful petition made in good faith to ensure judicial accountability. The Chief Justice is equal before the law. She is accountable for omissions arising from the exercise of judicial office.
“The prescribed procedure towards judges’ accountability is provided in article 146 of the Constitution, section 16 of the Judicial Service Act, and the Code of Conduct for Judges and Magistrates, Ghana.
“I did nothing criminal to be arrested and detained on her orders. I did not commit contempt of court. She made demeaning comments specifically directed at my person. I did respond, disagreeing with her demeaning comments. Suddenly, she furiously and unilaterally orders my arrest and detention for disagreeing with her demeaning comments.
“She abuses the sacred judicial office by wrongly causing my arrest and detention. The arrest and detention were capricious, unreasonable, unilateral, and without justification, constituting stated misbehavior and incompetence as provided in Article 146 (1) of the Constitution. The arrest and detention infringed on my rights, dignity, and resulted in pain, trauma, and humiliation.
“She failed or neglected to perform her judicial duty of recording the occurrence in the court’s record book. She authorized, supervised, and approved false statements or false entries in the search report.
“The supervision of false statements in the search was intended to deceive, cover up, obstruct, or pervert the course of justice, or constitute criminal fabrication of evidence, contrary to statutes, the Code of Conduct for Judges, and consistent with stated misbehavior and incompetence as provided in Article 146 (1) of the Constitution,” Ayamga Akolgo alleged in his petition.
CJ response to Ayamga
“Your Excellency, while I do not hesitate to apologize on behalf of the Supreme Court and myself if any court user, including the Petitioner, had a bad experience in court while I was presiding over a case, my humble submission is that the Petition does not provide any element of ‘misbehavior or incompetence that can lead to removal of a Chief Justice under the 1992 Constitution.
“The hearing and proceedings complained about are the proceedings of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is always composed of not less than five Justices for the exercise of its judicial functions under Article 128 of the 1992 Constitution, except when its work is executed by a single Justice under Article 134.
In the conduct of the work of the Supreme Court, the presiding Judge, whether the Chief Justice or another senior member of the court, is not the court. And any directions given during the court’s work are the directions of the court, and not the directions of any individual judge.
“As stated by the Petitioner, other members of the court gave various directions and contributions during the proceedings of the day. All those directions and contributions formed part of the work of the court that day.
“Article 127 on Independence of the Judiciary provides: 127 (3) A Justice of a Superior Court, or any person exercising judicial power, shall not be liable to any action or suit for any act or omission by him in the exercise of the judicial power.
Because of the weight of article 127 (3), it is respectfully submitted that neither the Chief Justice nor any of the Justices on the panel of five may be singled out to be sanctioned for court proceedings.
“I also wish to clarify that the manuscript records of the court in the Record Book of the Supreme Court are summaries of presentations and orders of the day relevant to the business of the court, and nothing more.
“This is the reason why the records of each panel are signed by each Judge on the panel, signifying their agreement that it constitutes a true record of the essence of proceedings and orders from the proceedings.
“Further, no Judge manages or administers the electronically captured records of the court. These records are managed by court recorders. Thus, respectfully, the Petitioner’s demands for liability for the records he is seeking on the matters that occurred concerning him are not appropriately targeted,” the Chief Justice noted in her response.
“Your Excellency, the matters presented in this Petition are unable to lead to a prima facie finding of liability for removal of the Chief Justice,” the response of Justice Getrude Torkornoo read in conclusion.
CJ Response to Ayamga Yakubu Petition Ayamga Yakubu Akolgo Petition
Shinning Stars Petition and Chief Justice’s response
Shining Stars of Ghana petition
The Shining Stars of Ghana, in their petition, essentially claim that “on 15 October 2024, honourable Alexander Afenyo Markin invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 2(10 (b) of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.
“The plaintiff’s invocation was activated by a dispute surrounding the filing of nominations by some Members of Parliament (MPs) intending to contest the impending 7 December 2024 general elections either under the tickets of different parties or as independent candidates.
“Among the issues set down by the plaintiff for determination (emphasis on issue 7 for the purpose of this petition) is: whether or not the Speaker of Parliament was in breach of the rules of natural justice (i.e. Audi alteram partem rule) in declaring these four parliamentary seats vacant without giving the four affected Members of Parliament a hearing.
“In our opinion, the Chief Justice who presided over the suit to determine whether or not the Speaker of Parliament was in breach of the rules of natural justice rather breached the same rules in the process of making such determination, which amounts to incompetence.
“Our claim is substantiated by the ruling of Afenyo v Speaker of Parliament and Attorney General (Writ No J1/02/2025) dated 12 November 2024, in which the court stated that “Notably, the 1st Defendant filed no processes in answer to this action.” Our understanding is that at the time of ruling on the above suit, the court had no affidavit from the Speaker of Parliament, being the 1st Defendant.
“The Court also stated that: “However, a further step taken two days after the issuance of this writ, the 1st Defendant issued a statement captured in the Official Report on Parliamentary Debates of 17 October 2024.
“In the first ten pages of that official report, the 1st defendant elaborately delivered a response to a statement made by the Honourable Minority Leader in which he recognized that he was making a formal response in relation to a matter of significant Parliamentary and constitutional importance.
“He said that he had been called on to follow precedent and declare vacant, the seats of four Members of Parliament pursuant to Article 97(1) (g) and (h) of the Constitution because certain members of Parliament had taken actions that contravene the provision of article 97(1)(g) and article 97(1)(h).
“The above statement by the court confirms our claim that the court had no affidavit from the 1st defendant before ruling on the matter. Our opinion is further substantiated by another statement by the court in the same ruling that; “Both the Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant filed their Statements of Case which in essence aligned with the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff in the writ.:” with reference to the above statement, there was no Legal Argument made by the 1st Defendant during court proceedings pursuant to the ruling.
“We are of the view that the Speaker’s decision does not meet the threshold of irreparable harm upon which the court grants orders of stay of execution without hearing him. We hold on to that view because those Members of Parliament who might have been affected by the Speaker’s ruling could seek legal redress and reverse whatever privileges and rights were denied them.
“We further express our opinion on the ruling of the Speaker’s application that the Chief Justice who presided over the above Application breached the rules of natural justice, which has been raised to a constitutional right in Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana. However, such a major breach by the Chief Justice, in our opinion, amounts to incompetence.”
CJ Response on Shining Stars
The Chief Justice, in her response to the first petition to the President on Monday, 7 April 2025, stated as follows: “On 17 December 2024, one Professor Asare presented a petition on inter alia, this same issue, to the President of the Republic.
“He sought the same relief sought by the current petitioner, thereby invoking the process set out under article 146 for the removal of superior court Justices, including the Chief Justice.
“Your Excellency, the then President, His Excellency Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, referred the petition to the Council of State, after requesting the responses of the Chief Justice. I submitted my response to the President.
“The President, in consultation with the Council of State, conducted a consideration of whether the petition on this subject matter raises a prima facie case for removal of the Chief Justice.
“The conclusion of the determination of the President, in consultation with the Council of State, on this subject matter found on page 8, therefore, was that ‘No provision of the Constitution or law has been breached.
“The Petitioner has failed to establish any misbehavior or incompetence on the part of the Chief Justice to warrant her removal from office under this charge. Accordingly, this allegation is without any basis and is, therefore, dismissed.
“Respectfully, this consideration of the President and the Council of State was arrived at after considering the same facts and issues raised by the petitioner herein and the fact that my recommendations rested on the established practice articulated by the Supreme Court in the GBA case.
“It is further respectfully submitted that the rule not to try anyone twice on the same facts and question in the same forum is an entrenched rule of our jurisdiction.
“It is administered in civil law within the doctrine of res judicata, arising from subject matter or issue estoppel. The legal foundation for this protection from double jeopardy is also found in criminal justice and is administered within the plea of ‘autrefois convict’ or ‘autrefois acquit’.
“To the extent that this same august constitutional forum created purposely to resolve issues regarding the initial review of a Petition against any Chief Justice of the realm has concluded a determination on this issue, it is my appeal that the issue should be considered to be res judicata.”
In response to the second complaint, the Chief Justice responded as follows: “The petitioner questions the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Afenyo Markin v Speaker of Parliament and Attorney General Suit No J1/02/2025.
“He complained that, based on the facts and issues and the ruling of the court, the Chief Justice who presided over the suit was in breach of the rules of natural justice.
“Humbly, the Petition misses two critical points. The hearing and decisions complained about are the decisions of the Supreme Court and not the decisions of the Chief Justice.
“The Supreme Court is always composed of not fewer than five Justices, for the exercise of its judicial functions under article 128 of the 1992 Constitution, except when its work is executed by a single Justice of the court under article 134.
“In the conduct of the work of the Supreme Court, the presiding Judge, whether the Chief Justice or another senior member of the court, is not the court, and none of the Judges who participate in a decision can be singled out for criticism of the legal import or effect of the court’s work.
“At the end of proceedings by each panel of the Supreme Court, all Judges sign the record created, indicating their concurrence in the record of the court. Article 127 on Independence of the Judiciary also provides:
“127 (3) A Justice of a Superior Court, or any person exercising judicial power, shall not be liable to any action or suit for any act or omission by him in the exercise of the judicial power.
“It is therefore humbly submitted that the Chief Justice cannot be subject to the onerous procedure of being removed from office on account of the opinion of the Petitioner regarding the quality of the Supreme Court’s decision. This is especially so when judicial decisions may be re-examined only through judicial processes that are provided for by law,” the response of the Chief Justice read.
