A research fellow at the Ghana Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), Dr John Osae-Kwapong, has expressed concerns over what he describes as vague constitutional provisions being used in the ongoing process to remove Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo from office.
Speaking on JoyNews and monitored by GhanaWeb on Thursday, June 26, 2025, he questioned the interpretation of key terms in Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, specifically “stated misbehaviour” and “incompetence” arguing that these grounds for removal are too ambiguous to justify such a high-level sanction without further clarification.
“It is vague when it says that the Chief Justice can be removed for stated misbehaviour or incompetence. God forbid, but if the Chief Justice were to lose their faculties or pass away, then obviously, you can replace them. But what exactly do we mean by ‘stated misbehaviour’? What constitutes ‘incompetence’?” he quizzed.
He warned that removing the head of the judiciary without clearly defined thresholds could erode public confidence in constitutional processes.
“If you are going to apply the highest form of sanction against the Chief Justice, you must leave no doubts in the minds of citizens that he or she did something very egregious,” Dr Osae-Kwapong said.
While acknowledging the legitimacy of the Chief Justice’s concerns about procedural fairness, he noted that those claiming that the process is unconstitutional have so far failed to identify any specific breaches.
“My biggest concern is that those who keep saying all of this is unconstitutional have not pointed out exactly what the constitutional infractions are from the beginning up until this point,” he said.
He also questioned the constitutional requirement that the proceedings are to be held in camera.
“I don’t like that. If you’re going to remove my Chief Justice from office, at least a bit of transparency is important, so citizens are not left second-guessing the motives of institutions,” he added.
Dr Osae-Kwapong also emphasised that debates must stay within the bounds of the constitution.
“We have to live with the constitutional prescription of what is. We can’t use what ought to be as the standard to assert that something unconstitutional is being done,” he said.
He stressed the need for a careful and transparent approach to handling the removal of heads of independent constitutional bodies to preserve public trust in democratic institutions.
Following the determination of a prima facie case in the three petitions asking for the removal, President John Dramani Mahama has suspended her and set up a five-member committee to probe the petitions.
The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed her application for an interlocutory injunction against the committee set up by President Mahama to investigate her conduct.
In addition to rejecting her injunction application, the Supreme Court also unanimously struck out a supplementary affidavit filed by Justice Torkornoo.
The Court held that the affidavit disclosed confidential information that should have remained under wraps in accordance with Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, which outlines the procedures for the removal of a Chief Justice or other superior court judges.
JKB/VPO
You couldn’t have been a ‘poor kid’ – Watch Kwasi Kwarteng’s message to Bawumia
