Two prominent legal figures, Thaddeus Sory and Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, alias “Kwaku Azar”, have strongly reacted to Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Torkornoo’s remarks concerning the impeachment proceedings outlined in Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution.
Instead of her press conference, Thaddeus Sory wrote, saying, “Put it in your final address to the Committee. Contortions, distortions and bad law. No locus standi in Article 146 proceedings. That is the law.”
Constitutional scholar Kwaku Azar, was more forceful in his criticism of Justice Torkornoo. He also refrains from mentioning the Chief Justice by name, but clearly addresses the context.
It comes as the suspended Chief Justice launched a blistering critique of the ongoing Article 146 proceedings over her alleged misconduct. She likened the treatment of her legal team to that of biblical magicians asked to reveal and interpret Nebuchadnezzar’s dream he had yet to disclose.
She claimed she was denied copies of the petition to respond with the excuse that the President, John Mahama, had already given them to her.
Today, Wednesday, June 25, the embattled Chief Justice delivered a national address in which she described the suspension and impeachment process as unconstitutional, opaque, and deeply flawed, particularly in its treatment of her legal counsel, whom she said have been forced to operate blindly.
“Like Nebuchadnezzar’s situation in which he demanded that the magicians in his court should tell him his dream and also interpret it, my lawyers are left to guess which allegations in the petitions are the subject matter of the testimonies being given,” Justice Torkornoo said.
Without directly naming the Chief Justice, lawyer Thaddeus Sory, who is lawyer to one of the petitioners, fired at her on Facebook, saying, “Contortions, distortions and bad law. No locus standi in Article 146 proceedings. That is the law,” calling attention to what many interpret as an attempt to limit legal scrutiny of the proceedings.
Kwaku Azar wrote, “Where the Constitution is wilfully violated, as here, we move from the realm of removal to the realm of constitutional crimes,” he stated in a social media post. “She’s playing with fire, and she might get burnt.”
Azar further added, “It seems she’s following the same script and advice that landed her in trouble in the first place,” suggesting a pattern of questionable constitutional interpretation and advice within the judiciary.
Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution outlines the procedures for the removal of certain high-ranking public officials, including judges. The locus standi, or legal standing, in such proceedings has often been a matter of public and legal debate, especially when transparency and due process are in question.
The Suspended Chief Justice declared she would not resign from office, framing her removal process as unconstitutional, politically motivated, and conflict-of-interest-laden.
She explained, “If I resign under these circumstances, I will be saying that this flawed, unknown and opaque possesses acceptable. It is not.”
“Finally, let me respectfully say that the current bizarre proceedings that I have brought to your attention present a twist to our nation’s democratic journey that we all ignore at our own cost.”
Justice Torkornoo’s suspension on April 22, 2025, followed three petitions alleging misconduct, which President John Mahama deemed sufficient to trigger an investigation under Article 146(6) of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution.
A five-member committee was formed to probe the allegations, but the process has been mired in controversy.
The suspended Chief Justice has repeatedly challenged the proceedings, filing a Supreme Court injunction to halt the committee’s work, citing violations of her rights.
According to her, Ghana has come too far “not to be concerned about the unconstitutionalities that have been designed not to affect just me personally as Chief Justice, but all judges and public officers, subject to removal processes of Article 146.
She alleges degrading treatment, including body searches, confiscation of electronic devices, and exclusion of her family from hearings held at Osu Castle, a high-security zone she called “psychological intimidation”
