In Ghana’s Fourth Republic, the removal of a Chief Justice has always been treated as a constitutional red line — not to be crossed lightly. Since the adoption of the 1992 Constitution, no sitting president has dared to walk that tightrope. And rightly so. The legal, political, and institutional fallout from attempting to remove the head of one of the three co-equal arms of government is simply too volatile. But for the first time in our democratic history, under H.E. President John Dramani Mahama the state has taken that unprecedented step — setting off alarm bells in legal and political circles.
Ghana’s constitution lays out a clear process for removing a Chief Justice. It is detailed, rigorous, and designed to protect the independence of the judiciary. On paper, President Mahama appears to be following this process to the letter. That, in itself, is commendable. The Constitution must be respected. But the controversy lies not in the process itself — but in those who are carrying it out.
It is important to clarify that the details of the petition have not been made public. What is currently circulating are unverified allegations, largely coming from individuals and voices aligned with the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC), primarily on social media.
These claims include:
- That Justice Torkornoo once engineered a petition to remove Justice Gabriel Pwamang, who now chairs the current removal committee.
- That she acted unfairly toward a lawyer’s spouse, who is also on the committee.
- That she delayed a case involving former Auditor-General Daniel Yaw Domelevo — another committee member — for three years, ultimately forcing him into retirement.
These remain allegations — and without public access to the contents of the petition, no one outside the official process can independently verify their credibility.
However, the optics are problematic. Whether or not these claims are factual, the presence of Pwamang and Domelevo on the committee has already stirred public suspicion. Can a committee tasked with ensuring fairness do so when its key members are perceived — rightly or wrongly — to have prior grievances with the subject of the investigation?
This is where Ghana’s political reality and constitutional framework collide. While legality may be followed to the letter, perception still matters. Public confidence in the judiciary is a fragile and vital resource for democracy.
Unfortunately, Ghanaian politics often treats perception as secondary. But for institutions like the judiciary, perception is part of power. When citizens begin to believe that justice is being shaped by political motives, confidence in state institutions erodes — no matter how legal the steps taken are.
While the move may be bold, it is not unexpected. In a different scenario, many believe any other president might have done the same. Ghana’s political elite have, over the years, shown little regard for optics when it comes to institutional independence. The temptation to influence arms of government for political advantage is ever-present — especially in election years.
But such decisions have long-term consequences. Today, it’s about the Chief Justice. Tomorrow, it could be another institution under similar strain.
Whatever the outcome of this constitutional process, it must be seen as fair, transparent, and free from political bias. That’s not just about protecting the Chief Justice — it’s about protecting the judiciary itself.
Until the contents of the petition are made public, all speculation — no matter how popular or widely believed — must be treated as exactly that: speculation.
Ghana stands at a crossroads. We must ask ourselves not just whether we can remove a Chief Justice, but how we do it — and what that means for the future of our democracy.
