Suspended Chief Justice Cries Out: “They want to mreak me!” – Torkornoo tells Supreme Court

Suspended Chief Justice of Ghana, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, has taken her emotional and legal battle to the Supreme Court, claiming that the ongoing impeachment process against her is not just unfair, but a deliberate plan to humiliate and mentally destroy her.

In a supplementary affidavit filed on May 21, 2025, in support of her interlocutory injunction application, the Chief Justice lays bare the treatment she says she has suffered at the hands of a presidential committee set up to investigate her conduct.

She says what is happening to her is not only unconstitutional but also “inhuman and degrading”, adding that no person—even someone accused of treason—deserves such treatment.

“They want to break me,” Justice Torkornoo wrote in the affidavit. “What I am going through is not even meted out to persons accused of treason.”

Violation of Her Rights?

Justice Torkornoo’s affidavit accuses the committee probing her of trampling on her constitutional rights, especially the right to a fair hearing, legal representation, and dignity.

According to her, the prima facie case — meaning the basic case that allowed the committee to proceed with impeachment investigations — was established without her even being told what the actual allegations were.

“I have never been informed of the specific allegations for which a prima facie case was established,” she said.

She added that until now, no legal basis has been shown to her for the committee’s actions. This, she believes, is a clear breach of the rules of natural justice, where every accused person must know the charges against them and be given a fair chance to respond.

Sidelining Her Lawyers

Justice Torkornoo also expressed deep concern over the way her legal team has been treated.

She revealed that on May 15, her lawyers appeared before the committee on her behalf because she couldn’t be present. However, she was shocked to learn that the committee refused to recognise her lawyer, even though they had received formal notice of the hearing.

She described how subsequent hearing dates were also fixed by the committee without her lawyers being consulted, even though the same lawyer was physically present on May 15.

“How can a lawyer who received a formal notice be ignored, and hearing dates set without consultation?” she asked.

Petitioners Not Testifying

The Chief Justice also strongly criticised the committee’s decision to allow petitioners to bring external witnesses, instead of appearing themselves to testify.

She argues that in any fair inquiry, the person bringing the accusations must appear in person, swear an oath, and be cross-examined, not hide behind third parties.

“This violates the standard rules of inquiry,” she said. “Petitioners must appear and be subject to cross-examination. That’s what justice demands.”

Harsh Conditions at the Hearing

What appears to disturb her the most, however, is the physical and emotional toll the proceedings are taking on her.

She explained that unlike other impeachment cases in the past — which were held at the Judicial Service’s Court Complex — her hearings are being held at the Osu Castle, a high-security government facility.

Justice Torkornoo said that when she went to the Castle for the hearing, her mobile phone and laptop were taken from her, and her legal team was also denied access to their gadgets.

“My husband and children were barred from entering the hearing room,” she recounted. “We were searched like criminals.”

In contrast, she claims the petitioners’ lawyers were allowed to use their phones and move around freely, and were treated with what she described as “preferential courtesies.”

“This is mental torture,” she stated bluntly. “These measures are designed to degrade me.”

Why the Castle?

Another major concern the Chief Justice raised is why her hearing was moved from the normal court setting to the Osu Castle, which is not a judicial facility.

“All previous Article 146 proceedings were done at the Courts Complex. Why move only my case to a fortified security facility?” she asked. “The location boggles the mind.”

She believes the choice of venue was not accidental, but a way to intimidate her and tarnish her image as the head of Ghana’s Judiciary.

Committee Ignoring Supreme Court Process?

The Chief Justice revealed that after filing her interlocutory injunction application at the Supreme Court to halt the inquiry, she and her lawyers informed the committee on May 22 about the case.

She said the committee adjourned the hearing and requested copies of the legal filings. But to her surprise, the very next day — May 23 — the committee announced it would go ahead with the hearings anyway, despite being aware that the matter was now before the highest court of the land.

“This shows total disregard for the authority of the Supreme Court,” she said.

“This Is a Mockery of Justice”

Throughout the affidavit, the suspended Chief Justice maintains that the entire process is not just flawed, but a planned move to remove her unjustly from office.

“This is a mockery of justice,” she wrote. “A ruse to unjustifiably remove me from office.”

She believes that if the committee is allowed to continue, it will set a dangerous precedent that could threaten the independence and job security of every judge in Ghana’s Superior Courts.

Final Appeal to the Supreme Court

Justice Torkornoo is now pleading with the Supreme Court to grant her an interlocutory injunction to pause the impeachment process, at least until the full case is heard.

In her final words to the Court, she did not speak just for herself, but for the entire Judiciary.

“This is bigger than me,” she said. “What is at stake is the security of tenure for every justice of the Superior Courts of Judicature. What is under threat is the very soul of our Constitution.”

She believes that the only institution that can protect her now is the Supreme Court and urges the Justices to rise above politics and ensure justice, fairness, and the protection of judicial independence.

“This Honourable Court is the only shield between me and an unconstitutional assault on the office I hold and the independence it symbolises,” she wrote. “Only you can stop this assault on judicial independence.”