The Supreme Court has unanimously struck out a supplementary affidavit filed by suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, ruling that it contained confidential details protected under Article 146 of Ghana’s Constitution.
The five-member panel delivered its decision on Wednesday, May 28, in favour of an application by Deputy Attorney General Justice Srem Sai. He argued that the affidavit revealed sensitive information about ongoing impeachment proceedings, which are constitutionally required to remain confidential.
Background to the Case
Justice Torkornoo submitted the supplementary affidavit on May 26 in support of her request for an interlocutory injunction to halt the impeachment process against her. In the filing, she described her experience as deeply unjust, stating that the process amounted to “a mockery of justice, an assault on judicial independence, and worse than the treatment meted out to persons accused of treason.”
She alleged that her constitutional rights had been violated and decried what she called degrading and inhumane treatment.
According to the affidavit, Justice Torkornoo had informed the committee of a lawsuit she filed at the Supreme Court on May 21 and had submitted relevant court documents. Despite this, the committee proceeded with its inquiry the next day.
“Notwithstanding receipt of the processes filed… the members of the committee indicated their resolve to proceed,” she stated. “I do not know the specific allegations I am to answer to. I cannot even begin to prepare a defence.”
She also criticised the committee’s conduct, claiming it had refused to recognise her legal counsel, even though he had received hearing notices. “The committee shockingly refused to recognise my counsel… and proceeded to fix subsequent hearing dates without involving him,” she wrote.
Justice Torkornoo further alleged procedural irregularities, including the use of third-party witnesses in place of the petitioners and denial of access to electronic devices. She took issue with the hearings being held at Osu Castle—a high-security location she described as intimidating and inappropriate.
“All Article 146 proceedings, with the exception of the one I am being subjected to, have been held in a judicial facility,” she noted. “The location of proceedings affecting me in a cordoned high-security facility boggles the mind.”
She described the entire process as part of a larger attack on the judiciary and called for Supreme Court intervention, warning that the implications of her case go beyond personal grievances and touch on the broader protection of judicial independence in Ghana.
Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court held that the contents of her affidavit breached confidentiality requirements and struck it out in its entirety.
