By Alex Ababio
Accra — When Ghana’s President suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo on April 22, 2025, and later accepted a committee’s recommendation to remove her, the move did more than end one judge’s tenure. It pulled back the curtain on Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution — the law that governs how the country removes judges — and reopened a national conversation about transparency, legal standards, and judicial independence. This feature explains, in simple terms, what Article 146 says, how it has worked in practice in this case, who the key players are, and what the removal means for Ghana’s courts.
What Article 146 actually says (in plain English)
Article 146 of Ghana’s Constitution sets the only legal route to remove a justice of a superior court. Its key points are straightforward:
A judge may be removed only for “stated misbehaviour,” incompetence, or infirmity.
A petition may be filed by any citizen.
The Council of State first considers whether a prima facie case exists. If it does, the President may suspend the judge and set up a special committee of inquiry.
The committee hears evidence in camera (closed sessions), then issues a report. Importantly, many authorities read Article 146(9) to mean the President must act on the committee’s recommendation.
Put simply: someone files a complaint → Council of State checks for a basic case → President suspends → inquiry hears evidence privately → President follows the panel’s recommendation.
You can read the full text of the Constitution for the exact wording in the official PDF.
How the Torkornoo case tested that process
The Torkornoo matter began with three petitions, the most public of which was filed by businessman Daniel Ofori. Local outlets published the full 15-page petition and associated documents, making the allegations available for public scrutiny. The Council of State advised the President that there was a prima facie case, leading to suspension and the constitutionally required inquiry.
A five-member committee heard witnesses and examined reams of documents. Reports say the panel took testimony from around 25 witnesses and reviewed hundreds — if not thousands — of pages of exhibits before delivering its first report to the President. The Presidency subsequently announced it had accepted the committee’s recommendation under Article 146(9) and removed the Chief Justice.
Chief Justice Torkornoo has consistently denied wrongdoing and called the petitions politically motivated; she has also taken legal steps to challenge elements of the process. International wires reported the suspension and removal, noting both legal procedure and political controversy.
Where the Constitution creates friction: secrecy vs. public trust
A central tension inside Article 146 is the closed-door nature of committee hearings. The framers intended secrecy to protect witnesses and the integrity of the process. But this secrecy has drawn criticism from legal scholars and civil society for limiting public understanding of why a high-level decision was made.
Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh — who has been publicly vocal on this issue — warned early on that Article 146’s secrecy can undermine transparency and put judicial independence at risk. He and others have called for reforms to ensure clearer rules about evidence, public summaries, and safeguards against political misuse.
Supporters of the process respond that the Constitution already builds in checks — Council of State review, the independence of committee members, and the involvement of non-lawyers on the panel for Chief Justice petitions — and that secrecy preserves the dignity of the office and the privacy of witnesses. The Presidency says due process was followed.
Legal interpretations and real examples
Article 146 has been interpreted in court in past disputes over procedure and scope. Ghanaian case law makes clear that questions such as what counts as a prima facie case and who must perform key initial reviews are legally important and sometimes contested. For instance, prior judgments emphasize that the Chief Justice or a designated official has a role in checking complaint validity in certain contexts, and courts have scrutinized whether committees were properly constituted under constitutional rules.
The Torkornoo episode is the most prominent modern test: she is the first Chief Justice in Ghana’s Fourth Republic to be suspended and then removed under Article 146, which makes this a live precedent for future removals. Legal bloggers and law firms have already produced analyses arguing both that Article 146’s language is adequate and that it needs statutory clarification.
Voices from the bar, bench and academy
Reactions have ranged widely. The Ghana Bar Association and some lawyers urged careful protection of due process and worried about chilling effects on judicial independence. International legal bodies and the Commonwealth lawyers’ networks also expressed concern about safeguards for judges and the fairness of secret hearings.
Professor Prempeh has called for constitutional reform to reduce secrecy and ensure stronger institutional checks. At the same time, anti-corruption campaigners and some government supporters framed the inquiry as evidence that no public official — not even the Chief Justice — is above scrutiny. This split reflects a broader public debate: accountability versus protection from political pressure.
Practical consequences: what citizens and the courts feel
Beyond theory, the suspension and removal cause real, immediate effects. The judiciary faces leadership disruption and administrative pressure — an acting Chief Justice must maintain case flow, allocate judges, and reassure litigants. The public also watches how pending high-profile cases will be managed while senior judicial leadership changes amid controversy.
Questions remain about access to the committee’s reasoning. Many citizens want a clear, public summary of the committee’s evidence and conclusions so they can judge whether the State’s actions were justified — without compromising witness safety or ongoing legal rights.
What reforms are being discussed?
Legal experts are proposing practical fixes to reduce ambiguity and preserve independence:
Statutory rules or regulations to clarify what counts as “stated misbehaviour” and what evidentiary standard the committee should use.
A public summary requirement so that committees publish redacted reasons for recommendations.
Stronger safeguards around Council of State mechanics to prevent politicised screening of petitions.
These reforms aim to keep the Constitution’s essential protection — security of tenure for judges — while making the removal pathway less vulnerable to political misuse.
The bigger picture: precedent and accountability
Article 146 sits at the junction of two goals: protecting judicial independence and holding judges to account. The Torkornoo affair is now a textbook example of how those goals can collide. What happens next — court challenges, possible reforms, or changes in how institutions manage complaints — will shape Ghana’s legal culture for years.
For citizens, the takeaway is simple: Ghana’s constitution provides a mechanism to remove judges, but that mechanism works only if it is both fair and seen to be fair. As legal scholars, bar groups, politicians and citizens weigh reforms, the country will need to find the balance between confidentiality and transparency, and between accountability and protection of judicial independence.