CJ’s Case: Kwaku Ansa-Asare opens up on CCTV video of lawyer and judges ‘meeting’

A former director of the Ghana School of Law, Kwaku Ansa-Asare, believes a petition addressed to President John Dramani Mahama to stop the probe against suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo has no merit.

The suspended chief justice applied on Wednesday, May 21, 2025, requesting an interlocutory injunction to halt all proceedings of the committee.

Aside from the Supreme Court suit, other private citizens have petitioned President Mahama to dissolve the committee probing the case, citing possible bias due to the alleged engagement between some committee members and Thaddues Sory, a lawyer for one of the petitioners seeking the removal of the Chief Justice from office.

The Court Documents

According to court documents, the Chief Justice wants the Supreme Court to issue an order restraining the six-member committee, composed of Justices Gabriel Scott Pwamang and Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, as well as Daniel Yao Domelevo, Major Flora Bazuwaaruah Dalugo, and Professor James Sefah Dzisah, from proceeding with any inquiry related to three petitions brought against her.

The application also seeks to bar Justices Pwamang and Adibu-Asiedu from presiding over or participating in any deliberations of the committee.

In the case of Mr. Sory, he was alleged to have met the justices at a restaurant in Accra on the same day the committee began an in-camera hearing of the case on May 15 per a petition addressed to President Mahama.

The CCTV video

Several days after the issue, a CCTV video emerged that captured some seconds of activities at the said restaurant on the said day.

After reviewing the video, Mr Ansa-Asare, who spoke in an interview on The Pulse on Joy News, admitted that there was an encounter that “didn’t last more than 20 seconds” but suggested that it was irrelevant to the case.

Based on the footage, Mr. Ansa-Asare stated, “Thaddeus Sory was already seated there [in the restaurant] before the three others joined. Pwamang was not sighted (in the video), and therefore, conclusively, he might not have been one of the three justices that the Chief Justice has named.”

He continued, “This didn’t last more than 20 seconds. There is considerable doubt as to the nature of their conversation. Whether the conversation centered around the ongoing petition, there is considerable doubt about that,” he observed.

His opinion

In his opinion, “If we take Pwamang, he wasn’t there, and so it means that allegation is frivolous and can be dismissed without calling on Pwamang to answer at all.”

On the others, he elaborated, “Justice Asiedu was there, but we have all seen that the conversation was not about the ongoing petition. What can four or so people, you know, talk about in 20 seconds? I would say that it doesn’t measure up to the standard. But when we measure it against the fact that the action the Chief Justice has brought is seeking to have the two justices disqualified, legally, this is a matter or question of fact. And every question of fact will depend on the surroundings and circumstances of the fact of the case. It is not a question of law”.

Based on all the findings, Mr Ansa-Asare concluded that “asking the president to dissolve the committee probing the petition merely because of a 20-second encounter at a restaurant where the people had converged to celebrate their colleague’s birthday, I think it should be dismissed. I don’t think that on both precedence and rules of court and the law, this is something that the president should worry himself about. He has many more serious problems to tackle than spending time to talk about an encounter that didn’t last more than 20 seconds”.

Suspended Chief Justice

The suspended Chief Justice, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, has gone to the Supreme Court to stop a committee set up by President John Mahama. This committee was formed to investigate petitions from people who want her removed from office.

She filed this application on Wednesday, May 21, 2025. In it, she’s asking the Supreme Court to place an injunction (a legal stop) on the committee’s work while the court decides on the case.

From the court papers, the Chief Justice is asking the Supreme Court to stop a six-member committee made up of Justices Gabriel Scott Pwamang and Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, along with Daniel Yao Domelevo, Major Flora Bazuwaaruah Dalugo, and Professor James Sefah Dziasah. She wants them to pause any investigations concerning the petitions filed against her.

She also doesn’t want Justices Pwamang and Adibu-Asiedu to be part of the hearings or take part in any discussions the committee may have.

What she asked the court

Again, she is asking the court to put a hold on the President’s order that suspended her from office under Article 146(10) of the Constitution, until the Supreme Court gives a final ruling on the matter.

This case was filed by her lawyers from Dame and Partners and is expected to be heard in court soon.

Earlier today, the Supreme Court, by a 4–1 decision, threw out another application. This one was filed by a private citizen, Theodore Kofi Atta-Quartey. He was also challenging the process of removing the Chief Justice from office. But the judges said his case had no merit and dismissed it on Wednesday, May 21.

This is actually the second case about the same issue that the Supreme Court has dismissed on the same day.

The first one was filed by a civil society group called the Centre for Citizenship, Constitutional and Electoral Systems (CenCES). They were also trying to reverse the President’s decision to suspend the Chief Justice and stop the work of the committee.

That panel of five judges—Paul Baffoe-Bonnie (who presided), Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu, Yonny Kulendi, Henry Anthony Kwofie, and Yaw Asare Darko—voted 4–1. Only Justice Yaw Asare Darko disagreed with the others.

CenCES had argued that the President acted unconstitutionally when he suspended the Chief Justice and set up the committee. They wanted the court to cancel both the suspension and the committee’s activities.

But the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the President, allowing the committee to go ahead with its work.