Private legal practitioner Yaw Danquah has expressed concern over what he describes as the troubling trend of attempts to remove the Chief Justice whenever there is a change in government.
Speaking on ABC News GH, Danquah emphasized that the Attorney General (AG) is not above the judiciary and must operate within the same legal framework as any other government official.
“The AG is only the government lawyer. He is not above the judiciary,” he stated. “He must go through the same conditions as everyone else.”
Danquah’s comments come in the wake of reports that President John Mahama has initiated consultations with the Council of State following the submission of three petitions seeking the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo.
According to a statement from the Minister for Government Communications, Felix Kwakye Ofosu, the petitions have been forwarded to the Council of State in accordance with the constitutional process outlined in Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution. While the specifics of the petitions remain undisclosed, the move has sparked concerns over potential political interference in the judiciary.
This is not the first time Chief Justice Torkornoo has faced attempts to remove her from office. In January this year, former President Nana Akufo-Addo dismissed a petition filed by legal scholar Prof. Stephen Kwaku Asare, which accused the Chief Justice of misconduct and incompetence. The petition cited issues such as alleged panel reconstitution, issuance of practice directions, and constitutional breaches. However, after consultations with the Council of State, Akufo-Addo ruled that the petition lacked merit and did not present a prima facie case warranting further investigation.
The process for the removal of a Chief Justice is enshrined in Article 146 of the Constitution, which provides clear guidelines for addressing allegations of misconduct or incompetence. However, Danquah and other legal experts caution that frequent attempts to challenge the Chief Justice’s position each time there is a change in government could undermine the independence of the judiciary.
As the Council of State reviews the latest petitions, legal analysts and political observers continue to debate whether these attempts reflect genuine concerns about judicial integrity or are part of a broader political strategy to influence the judiciary’s composition.
