President Mahama Discloses Reasons Behind Chief Justice’s Dismissal

President John Dramani Mahama on Monday, September 1st, relieved Chief Justice Gertrude Esaaba Torkornoo of her duties.

“President John Dramani Mahama has, in accordance with Article 146(9) of the 1992 Constitution, removed the Chief Justice, Her Ladyship Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkonoo, from office with immediate effect. This follows receipt of the report of the Committee constituted under Article 146(6) to inquire into a petition submitted by a Ghanaian citizen, Mr Daniel Ofori. After considering the petition and the evidence, the Committee found that the grounds of stated misbehaviour under Article 146(1) had been established and recommended her removal from office. Under Article 146(9), the President is required to act in accordance with the committee’s recommendation,” a statement issued by the Minister of Government Communications said.

A letter signed by the Secretary to the President, Calistus Mahama, outlined the reasons behind the decision. The investigative committee found that the former Chief Justice authorized the payment of per diem allowances to her husband and daughter during official travels, actions deemed to be in violation of legal and administrative protocols of the Judicial Service.

The committee’s report detailed two specific trips taken by Justice Torkornoo in September 2023: one to Tanzania with her husband, and another to the United States with her daughter. According to the report, both trips were personal holidays, yet expenses, including per diem payments for her family members, were charged to the Judicial Service.

“In the opinion of the committee, the travel expenses which the Chief Justice heaped on the Judicial Service… together with the payment of per diem to her husband and daughter, constitute unlawful expenditure of public funds. It cannot be justified in law or policy,” the letter stated.

The report described the expenditure as “avoidable and reckless dissipation of public funds” and concluded that such conduct, coming from the head of the Judiciary, amounted to “stated misbehaviour.”