The Attorney General (AG) has filed a notice of legal objection, seeking to strike out the suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo’s supplementary affidavit in support of her application for an interlocutory injunction.
The AG’s grounds for objection are that the affidavit’s depositions by Justice Torkornoo allegedly contravene Article 146(8) of the 1992 Constitution.
According to the notice of legal objection signed by Deputy Attorney General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai and filed on May 27, the AG will argue that the supplementary affidavit, dated May 26, 2025, violates the constitutional provision and should therefore be struck out by the Court.
EIB Network’s Legal Affairs Correspondent, Murtala Inusah, reports that the Supreme Court is expected to sit on the matter on Wednesday, May 28, 2025.
Supplementary affidavits
On Monday, May 26, the suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo filed additional processes at the Supreme Court, alleging violations of her fundamental rights in the ongoing impeachment proceedings against her.
According to her, the proceedings have been marred by several irregularities, including denial of access to family members, unreasonable searches, and restrictions on access to telephones and laptops.
In a supplementary affidavit filed to buttress her application for interlocutory injunction, the suspended Chief Justice said these actions amount to mental torture and degrading treatment, in violation of her constitutional rights.
She also questions the legitimacy of holding the proceedings in a high-security facility at the Castle, Osu, rather than a judicial facility, as has been the practice in similar article 146 proceedings.
Justice Torkornoo asserts that the location of the proceedings in a cordoned high-security facility is unprecedented and raises concerns about the independence of the judiciary.
The Chief Justice’s lawyers contend that the persistent violations of her rights demonstrate that the proceedings are a “mockery of justice” and a ploy to unjustifiably remove her from office.
The Chief Justice respectfully prays for the Supreme Court’s intervention, seeking an injunction to prevent further assaults on judicial independence and protect the security of tenure of the Chief Justice and Justices of the Superior Courts of Judicature.
AG’s opposition
The AG in response, fired back at suspended Chief Justice, Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, denying allegations of leaking processes seeking her removal from office.
In a sworn affidavit in opposition to the suspended CJ affidavit in support of her motion for interlocutory injunction, the AG accused the Chief Justice of consistently publishing the processes to the public, contrary to constitutional injunction.
In a significant development in the ongoing removal proceedings of the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General vehemently denied allegations of leaking processes related to the case to the public.
The Attorney-General’s office has responded to the applicant’s affidavit, specifically addressing paragraphs 17 through 23.
The AG asserts that holding proceedings in camera is a constitutional requirement aimed at preserving the dignity of the applicant, the judiciary’s authority and independence, and protecting potential witnesses.
Furthermore, the AG argues that while the applicant may waive her rights to in-camera hearings, she cannot unilaterally waive the rights of the entire judiciary or potential witnesses who are also entitled to protection.
Regarding the applicant’s claims of not receiving proper records of consultative proceedings between the Council of State and the President, the AG states that the true and proper records have been supplied to those entitled by law.
The AG also notes that the Supreme Court recently ruled in a similar case (Centre for Citizenship Constitutional and Electoral Systems LBG v The Attorney-General & 2 Others) that the applicant’s claims do not warrant an order of interlocutory injunction.
The case continues to unfold, with the AG maintaining that the applicant’s assertions are unfounded and that constitutional safeguards must be upheld to protect the integrity of the judiciary.
Source: Ghana/Starrfm.com.gh/Murtala Inusah
