Court throws out Torkonoo’s case against removal process
The Human Rights Division of the High Court in Accra has dismissed a judicial review application filed by suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo, ruling that the case constituted an abuse of court process and that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it.
The ruling, delivered by Justice Kwame Amoako, marks the collapse of a second legal challenge by the suspended Chief Justice over the ongoing proceedings for her potential removal from office under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution.
This judicial review follows an earlier constitutional interpretation case filed by Justice Torkonoo at the Supreme Court, which is still pending. However, an injunction application she filed to halt the impeachment proceedings, pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case, was previously dismissed.
Details of the High Court Application
Filed on June 9, 2025, the judicial review application sought nine reliefs, including a series of declarations that the Article 146 committee investigating her had acted unlawfully. The Chief Justice also requested the court to quash proceedings of the committee and prohibit it from continuing without providing authenticated copies of the petitions and responses.
Court’s Legal Reasoning
In his ruling, Justice Amoako categorized the reliefs into two groups: those dismissed as an abuse of court process, and those dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Reliefs Dismissed as Abuse of Court Process
The court found that several of the Chief Justice’s claims were already before the Supreme Court in the constitutional interpretation case. These included:
1. Allegations that the committee was proceeding unlawfully due to the Registry’s failure to provide authenticated petitions and responses;
2. A request to prohibit the committee from continuing its work without those authenticated documents;
3. Claims that the committee was wrongfully conducting adversarial proceedings, rather than an impartial inquiry;
4. Allegations that the committee’s composition was unlawful.
Justice Amoako held that re-litigating these issues at the High Court, while they are under active consideration by the Supreme Court, amounted to duplicative litigation and an abuse of the court process.
Reliefs Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
The remaining reliefs were struck out on jurisdictional grounds. These included:
1. Requests to nullify the committee’s sittings on the basis that the Chief Justice was denied a fair hearing;
2. Allegations that her legal team was prevented from representing her during the proceedings;
3. Claims of procedural breaches of the Constitution and the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules;
4. An application for an order of certiorari to quash the committee’s proceedings.
The court held that it could not inquire into these matters, as they related directly to proceedings of the Article 146 committee, which, under Article 146(8) of the Constitution, are to be held in-camera and shielded from external review.
