The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the injunction application filed by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.
The apex court ruled on Wednesday, May 28 that there was no merit in the application, TV3’s Laud Adu-Asare who was in court reported.
Justice Torkornon on May 26 filed the affidavit in support of her interlocutory injunction against the committee probing three petitions for her removal.
In the affidavit, she claimed among others that her rights are being abused by members of the committee.
“That I respectfully seek leave of this Honourable Court to bring to the Court’s attention various developments since the filing of the present application which evidence a complete desecration of my basic constitutional rights to a fair trial, violation of my dignity and subjection to inhuman and degrading treatment, of a kind not meted out to even accused persons on trial for treason and other offences against the State,” Mrs Torkornoo wrote. According to her, “That other developments like the denial of access into the hearing room for my husband and children, searches on my body, denial of access to telephones and laptops for myself and my lawyers (even though counsel for petitioners have access to their phones and laptops) and the conduct of the hearing itself in a high security zone at the premises of the Castle, Osu show a deliberate effort to subject me to mental torture and degrading treatment in violation of my fundamental rights.” Mrs Torkornoo added “That all article 146 proceedings with the exception of the one I am being subjected to, had hitherto, been held in a judicial facility, specifically, the Courts Complex. The location of proceedings affecting me to a cordoned high security facility boggles the mind.”
You May Also Like Interior Minister advocates stakeholder collaboration to combat small arms proliferation G20 in Africa: Time to reframe Africa’s investment narrative through AfCFTA – B20 Chair Supreme Court strikes out Torkornoo’s supplementary affidavit for breaching in-camera rules Court sets June 18 to rule on Ken Ofori-Atta’s case against Special Prosecutor Treat Gertrude Torkonoo well, her dignity as a human being must be respected – Franklin Cudjoe In his objection filed on May 27, signed by Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem Sai, Dr Ayine requested the Supreme Court to, “Strike out the Plaintiff/Applicant’s supplementary affidavit dated May 26, 2025, in support of the motion on notice for an order of interlocutory injunction, and Make any other orders that the Court may deem fit.
You May Also Like
- U-20 afcon: black satellites face tough task as coach desmond ofei prepares squad for car
- Zito appointed technical director as kotoko restructures technical team
- Michael essien didn’t get the recognition he deserved – mikel obi
- Ghana’s tax system encourages evasion, enriches just a few – prof quartey warns
He stated that grounds of objection as, “the depositions in the said affidavit violate Article 146(8) of the 1992 Constitution.”
“COURT TO BE MOVED on the day of 28th May, 2025 at 9 O’clock in the forenoon or so soon thereafter as Counsel for and on behalf of the Defendants/Respondents may be heard,” Dr Srem Sai wrote.In a significant ruling on May 28, the Supreme Court of Ghana has officially dismissed the injunction application submitted by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, with the court finding no merit in her claims. This decision marks a pivotal moment in what has become a highly publicized legal battle surrounding the Chief Justice and the committee tasked with investigating three petitions for her removal.
Laud Adu-Asare, a reporter from TV3, who was present in the courtroom during the ruling, confirmed that the apex court’s unanimous decision underscored the committee's authority to proceed with their investigation without interference from the judicial branch. This outcome has sparked various reactions from legal experts and the public alike, as it lays the foundation for the ongoing scrutiny surrounding the actions of the Chief Justice and the integrity of the judicial process in the country.
The controversy began when Justice Torkornoo, on May 26, sought legal recourse through an affidavit that aimed to secure an interlocutory injunction against the committee probing the petitions filed against her. In her affidavit, Torkornoo articulated a range of grievances, asserting that her constitutional rights were being violated by the committee members. She stated that the treatment she had received amounted to a "complete desecration” of her rights and was reminiscent of treatment not even reserved for individuals facing charges of treason or other severe crimes against the state.
Among her claims were allegations of mental and emotional distress incited by the committee’s actions. Torkornoo asserted that her fundamental rights were being infringed upon through various means, including the denial of access to the hearing room for her immediate family and personal searches that she deemed unnecessary and invasive. She further highlighted a striking discrepancy in the treatment of petitioners' counsel, noting that while they had access to their phones and laptops, she faced outright prohibitions that hindered her ability to engage with her legal representation effectively.
The Chief Justice expressed deep concern over the high-security environment in which the hearings have been taking place, specifically noting that past proceedings related to Article 146 cases had conventionally occurred within the Judicial Service’s facilities, not behind the restrictive walls of a high-security zone at the Castle in Osu. This unusual arrangement led her to question the motivations behind the committee's choices, raising suspicions of deliberate attempts to exert psychological pressure on her.
In response to Justice Torkornoo’s claims, the Deputy Attorney-General, Dr. Justice Srem Sai, filed an objection on May 27. He argued for the Supreme Court to strike out Torkornoo’s supplementary affidavit as it violated the in-camera rules established under Article 146(8) of the 1992 Constitution. This objection further complicated the proceedings, as it put additional scrutiny on the legal pathways available to the Chief Justice in her fight against the committee.
The Supreme Court intends to revisit the matter in a scheduled session on June 18, where it will rule on another significant case involving Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta, linking these cases in the public consciousness. Meanwhile, public discourse continues to evolve around Justice Torkornoo's situation, with various stakeholders and legal experts emphasizing the importance of maintaining her dignity and ensuring that her rights as a human being are respected throughout the process.
As this story unfolds, the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling and the operational dynamics of the committee probing the Chief Justice's conduct are poised to shape the ongoing narrative surrounding Ghana's judiciary. The intersection of legal procedures, personal rights, and public interest will remain a focal point for both the media and the citizens watching closely. The coming weeks will undoubtedly reveal more layers to this unfolding legal drama, raising questions about the integrity of Ghana's judicial system and the protections entitled to its members.