Torkornoo’s presser was legally misguided, politically motivated – Lawyer

Private legal practitioner Thaddeus Sory has punched holes into the press conference organised by suspended Chief Justice Esaaba Torkornoo.

He strongly criticised Madam Torkornoo for her address regarding the Article 146 impeachment proceedings against her.

The lawyer raised questions about Madam Torkornoo’s legal reasoning and pronouncements at the presser.

He argued that Article 146 is a well-established provision, and personalities before her, including former Electoral Commissioner Charlotte Osei, went through similar proceedings; hence, her opposition to the process is not sound and without merit.

The lawyer also opined that the request made by Madam Torkornoo for a public hearing contradicts multiple Supreme Court rulings that such proceedings must be held in camera.

The opinion by the lawyer also declared that the complaints raised regarding the striking out of her supplementary affidavit are hypocritical given her own past judicial conduct.

He added that the suspended Chief Justice’s questioning of the location for the hearing shows the misunderstanding of the law and her own position in the process.

He concluded by stating that the suspended Chief Justice’s actions are nothing far from legal missteps, misrepresentations, and perceived self-importance, which also undermine her competence to even hold office as head of the judiciary.

Read the full opinion piece below

25th June 2025
SHE SAID, WE SAY …

1. The Honourable Learned Chief Justice of several
   years standing at the bar, Judge for so many years says the article 146 proceedings against her “ripple far beyond…[her] as a person.”
   We say: Ghanaians need no education on it. Charlotte Osei and other Justices of the Superior Courts have been subjected to it and there is too much case law.
2. She said she applied for a public hearing of article 146 proceedings.
   We ask how could a whole Chief Justice not know that:

i. the Supreme Court has in at least three cases affirmed that article 146 proceedings must be held in camera? See the cases of Justice Dery v Tiger Eye PI [2015-2016] 2 SCGLR 812, Agyei Twum v A-G [2005-2006] SCGLR 732 and Ghana Bar Association v Attorney-General [1995-96] 1 GLR 656.
ii. all previous article 146 proceedings which were conducted under the auspices of Chief Justices have in accordance with the Constitution and the Supreme Court decisions been held in camera?

3. Is the Chief Justice complaining about the striking out of her supplementary affidavit by the Supreme Court in a suit by which she herself invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
   We say:
   i. Has the Chief Justice so soon forgotten that in one of the LGBTQI+ cases she ordered that the affidavit of Wendy Yeboah who deposed to an affidavit on behalf of the Right Hon. Speaker of Parliament be struck out even though she could not point out one paragraph in it which was offensive.
   ii. How come the Chief Justice does not know that she was in the Supreme Court invoking its original jurisdiction but not to enforce her fundamental human rights in respect of which it is the High Court which has exclusive original jurisdiction?
4. Did she say her rights were violated? That the Committee did not point her to the specific allegations in respect of which a prima facie case was made?
   We ask, to what allegations did she provide her responses to enable the prima facie determination to be made.
5. Did she say the committee decided not to force Daniel Ofori to testify? Our answer? So, our Chief Justice does not even know that the law is that a party is not obliged to testify? See the cases of Nyame v Ansah [1989-90] 2 GLR 152 CA and In Re Ashale Botwe [2003-2004] 1 SCGLR 420
6. And she said her husband was not allowed to be present during the article 146 proceedings?
   We say she should point to any of the previous article 146 proceedings in which the respondents were allowed to participate in the proceedings with their spouses and other members of the family. That has always been the law.
7. She said the hearings take place in a cordoned high security zone on Castle Drive, Osu, when all Article 146 proceedings since 1993, had been held in a judicial facility at the Judicial Service, Accra.
   We say, does the Chief Justice not know that all those other article 146 proceedings were conducted under her auspices but that this one is NOT?
8. Oh, the Chief Justice equates the article 146 proceedings with judicial proceedings in the courts of justice?
   We say, does our Chief Justice not even know article the 146 proceedings are inquisitorial and not in the nature of judicial proceedings and that the Committee is not a court of law?
9. The Chief Justice has not been given copies of the petitions, she says.
   We say what did she respond to that resulted in the prima facie determinations?
10. Most embarrassingly the Chief Justice says that the petition should have been put in evidence in the proceedings before the Committee?
    Lord have mercy. We say even in the courts no party puts their pleadings in evidence in order for a trial to be validly conducted based on the pleadings.
11. The Chief Justice says that the proceedings should have followed the Commissions of Inquiry (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2010 (C. I. 65).
    And we say, so the Chief Justice after laying hands on this statute did not read the definition section which specifies the type of committees to which the statute applies?
    And and we ask, does the Chief Justice not know that in the Agyei Twum case Sophia Akuffo JSC (as she then was) held that the article 146 Committee is an adhoc committee and is free to determine its procedure?
12. The Chief Justice says she expected that the Petitioner’s must have a direct interest in the specific allegations brought against her in order to validly proceed under article 146?
    We say,
    i. does the Chief Justice remember that in Charlotte Osei’s case some of the petitioners were dead?
    ii. does she remember that Charlotte Osei was removed for procurement breaches?
    iii. And if a Chief Justice does not even know that the Agyei Twum case said that in proceedings for the removal of the Chief Justice no locus standi is necessary, should we trust that she is the person to protect our democracy?
13. If there is any takeaway from the sanctimonious political posturing of our Chief Justice in her statement, her depth in basic legal principles, candor in applying them and fidelity to the law must leave us wondering if it is she who must be trusted to spearhead justice in our democracy.
14. My lady honourable, your suggestion that without you there can be no justice is betrayed by the statement.

By: Rainbowradioonline.com/Ghana