Suspended CJ’s probe shouldn’t be public, it is dangerous – MP explains why

The Member of Parliament (MP) for Upper Manya Krobo, Hon. Bismark Tetteh Nyarko, has called on all Ghanaians—especially those pushing for public hearings in the case against the suspended Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo—to respect the Constitution of Ghana.

Speaking in an interview on Channel One Newsroom on Sunday, May 25, 2025, the MP said it is important that the ongoing investigation into petitions against the Chief Justice is done privately (in camera), just as the 1992 Constitution says.

According to Hon. Nyarko, while people may have different opinions and may want transparency, we must not ignore what the Constitution says. He believes that allowing public hearings would amount to going against the laws that guide how judges, including Chief Justices, are held accountable.

“Let’s Not Bend the Rules” – Nyarko Warns Against Deviating from Constitutional Procedures

The MP explained that Article 146 of the Constitution clearly outlines how complaints and petitions against superior court judges (including the Chief Justice) should be handled. One key part of this process is that the hearings must be done in private, not in front of cameras or the general public.

“If the Constitution says that this investigation should be in camera, I don’t see why somebody should be saying that the President of the Republic of Ghana should do otherwise,” he stated.

Hon. Nyarko stressed that even though Ghana is a democracy and people want transparency in state matters, this is not one of those cases where openness should override constitutional requirements. He said if we go against the constitution now, it could set a bad example for the future.

Calls for Transparency vs. Rule of Law

Lately, there has been a lot of debate in the media and on social media about whether the committee set up by President Mahama to investigate Chief Justice Torkornoo’s case should conduct the hearings publicly. Some civil society groups, legal commentators, and political analysts have argued that the public deserves to know what is happening since the matter involves the head of the judiciary.

But Hon. Nyarko disagrees with that view. He believes that the call for transparency should not be used as a reason to ignore what the Constitution clearly says.

“The procedures are there, the Constitution is clear on these matters, and if the President or the committee is following what the Constitution demands, I think that is right,” he said.

“Judiciary Is Independent, But Not Above the Constitution”

Hon. Nyarko also used the opportunity to explain that judicial independence—while very important—does not mean judges are above the law.

“Yes, the judiciary is independent in terms of its judicial, administrative, and financial functions, but that independence still operates under the 1992 Constitution,” he said.

In simple terms, the judiciary is free to make its own decisions without interference from the executive or legislature, but that freedom must be exercised within the boundaries set by the Constitution. So if a judge, even the Chief Justice, is facing allegations of wrongdoing, the Constitution provides a clear and fair process for dealing with it—and that process must be followed.

Spouse’s Request to Attend Hearing Surprises MP

Hon. Nyarko also reacted to reports that the husband of the suspended Chief Justice had expressed interest in being present at the hearing. According to the MP, such a request was surprising and unnecessary.

He explained that once the Constitution says the hearing must be done in camera, it means that only people who are directly involved in the process—like the Chief Justice, her lawyers, members of the committee, and other essential parties—should be allowed into the room.

“The Constitution is clear—this matter should be heard in camera. If it is in camera, that should be it,” he said firmly.

Nyarko suggested that allowing spouses or any other family members to be part of the hearings would only complicate the matter and could even raise questions about fairness and transparency within the private setting.

Background of the Case Against Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo

Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo was recently suspended by President John Mahama after a prima facie case (which means enough evidence to warrant further investigation) was established following the submission of multiple petitions calling for her removal from office.

In line with Article 146 of the Constitution, a five-member committee was formed by the President to investigate the matter. This committee will gather evidence, listen to all sides, and make recommendations on whether or not the Chief Justice should be removed.

In response, Justice Torkornoo has also filed a case at the Supreme Court to challenge the process, suggesting that her constitutional rights might have been breached.

What Does the Constitution Say?

The key constitutional provision at the centre of this matter is Article 146. It outlines the following:

How a petition is submitted against a judge.

The President must forward the petition to the Chief Justice—or if the Chief Justice is involved, to another judge or authority.

A committee is then set up to investigate the complaint.

Importantly, the committee’s hearings must be held in camera—that is, privately, away from the public eye.

This system was designed to protect the dignity of the judicial office, to avoid public spectacle and media interference, and to ensure a fair and confidential process.

Why This Debate Is Important

The situation has generated a lot of public interest because it involves the highest-ranking judge in the country. People want to know whether there has been misconduct, and they also want to be sure that politics is not influencing the outcome.

But Hon. Bismark Tetteh Nyarko’s position is a reminder that the Constitution must remain the guidepost—no matter the pressure, no matter the public sentiment.

As he puts it, “Let us not bend the rules for the sake of public opinion. We must be guided by law, not emotions.”

Final Words

This issue touches on key values of Ghana’s democracy: accountability, rule of law, separation of powers, and respect for constitutional order.

Yes, people deserve transparency in public office. Yes, leaders must be held accountable. But as Hon. Nyarko reminds us, the right way to do that is by following the rules set in the Constitution.

If the Constitution says the hearings must be private, then we must respect that—even if we don’t agree. That is what it means to live in a country ruled by law.