AG files motion to strike out suspended CJ’s supplementary affidavit

The legal drama surrounding the suspension and possible removal of Ghana’s Chief Justice, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, has taken a fresh and fiery turn.

Just a day before the Supreme Court sits for a crucial hearing, the Attorney-General’s Department has rushed to file an urgent motion seeking to strike out a new affidavit from the embattled Chief Justice.

This new move could decide whether or not the impeachment inquiry against her will continue—and possibly set a new precedent in Ghana’s legal and political history.

What Is the Fight About?

On Monday, May 26, suspended Chief Justice Torkornoo submitted what many are calling a scathing supplementary affidavit, filled with disturbing details of how she has been treated since her suspension. In this document, she accuses the impeachment committee of violating her constitutional rights, treating her like a criminal, and conducting the process in a way that amounts to “mental torture.”

But the Attorney-General’s Office, led by Deputy AG Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, says this affidavit should not be entertained by the Supreme Court at all. According to the AG, it breaches Article 146(8) of the Constitution, which forbids any disclosure or publication of information related to proceedings under that article.

They have therefore filed an urgent motion asking the court to strike the affidavit out entirely and remove it from the official records.

What’s in the Chief Justice’s Shocking Affidavit?

Justice Torkornoo’s affidavit doesn’t hold back. In fact, it reads like a cry for help—not just for herself but for the entire judiciary. She paints a picture of what she calls a “mockery of justice”—a system being manipulated to remove her from office at all costs.

Here are some of the key issues she raised in the affidavit:

1. Mental Torture and Intimidation

She says the treatment she has received is worse than what people accused of treason go through.

“This is a complete desecration of my basic constitutional rights… and subjection to inhuman and degrading treatment,” she wrote.

2. Security Harassment

Justice Torkornoo says she was forced to undergo body searches. Her phones and laptops were seized, and even her lawyers were denied basic access to the tools they needed to help her defend herself.

Her husband and children were not allowed into the hearing venue, which she says made her feel isolated and under siege.

3. Venue Meant to Intimidate

Perhaps one of the most controversial parts of her statement is about the location of the hearing.

Instead of a courtroom or judicial facility, the inquiry is being held at the Osu Castle, a well-known military and high-security installation.

“The location of proceedings affecting me in a cordoned high-security facility boggles the mind,” she said, suggesting the choice of venue was meant to intimidate her.

4. No Fair Trial

Justice Torkornoo says she doesn’t even know what exactly she is being accused of.

She explains that she was never told the specific allegations, and the committee refused to share the legal basis for concluding that a prima facie case had been established against her.

“I cannot even begin to prepare a defence,” she stated in frustration.

She also said her lawyer was disrespected and sidelined, despite being served with notices by the committee itself.

5. Petitioners Avoiding Accountability

In a serious procedural complaint, she said the committee is allowing the petitioners to send third-party witnesses instead of appearing themselves to testify.

This, she argues, violates the rule of law and allows the petitioners to dodge cross-examination, a key part of any fair hearing.

“This is completely offensive to known rules of procedure,” she wrote.

Attorney-General Fights Back: “She Has Gone Too Far”

The Deputy Attorney-General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, says the Chief Justice’s affidavit is out of order and in violation of the law.

According to him, Article 146(8) of the Constitution specifically says that no one should publish or reveal what happens during an Article 146 inquiry.

The AG believes that Justice Torkornoo’s affidavit, which describes the committee’s conduct in detail and reveals internal procedures, crosses the line and should be struck out immediately.

Their goal is to prevent the affidavit from being used to influence the court’s decision during tomorrow’s hearing, which could lead to the suspension of the impeachment process if the Supreme Court grants the Chief Justice’s request for an injunction.

What Happens Next?

Tomorrow’s hearing at the Supreme Court could go in any direction:

If the court agrees with the AG and strikes out the affidavit, Justice Torkornoo may lose a key part of her legal defence, making it harder for her to stop the proceedings.

If the court refuses to strike it out, then the contents of the affidavit will remain in the record, and the justices will have to decide whether to suspend the entire impeachment process until her main case is heard.

Legal observers say this case will be a test of Ghana’s democratic institutions, especially on the issue of judicial independence and how high-ranking officials are treated when under investigation.

Why This Case Matters for Every Ghanaian

Many Ghanaians are asking: “If this can happen to the Chief Justice, what about the rest of us?”

That is a question Justice Torkornoo herself raised. She warned in her affidavit that this isn’t just about her personal survival, but about protecting the independence of the judiciary and the integrity of Ghana’s Constitution.

“This case is not about me. It’s about the future of justice in this country,” she declared.

If a Chief Justice can be suspended, searched, isolated, and investigated in secrecy, then it raises major questions about the balance of power between the executive and the judiciary.

Conclusion: A Battle at the Highest Level

What began as a quiet petition against Ghana’s Chief Justice has now exploded into a full-blown constitutional crisis.

With both sides—Justice Torkornoo and the Attorney-General—digging in their heels, the Supreme Court’s decision tomorrow will not only affect her fate, but will also send a powerful signal about how far Ghana is willing to go in protecting—or abandoning—judicial independence.