The Director of Communications for the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Richard Ahiagbah, has called on a future government to review what he described as the injustice meted out to former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo following her removal from office.
His comments come after the ECOWAS Court of Justice on Wednesday, June 24, dismissed all claims filed by Justice Torkornoo in connection with her removal.
Reacting to the ruling on Facebook, June 25, 2026, Mr. Ahiagbah described the court’s decision as disappointing and argued that the circumstances of the former Chief Justice’s removal warranted further scrutiny.
“I sincerely hope that a future government will take all necessary steps to re-examine and address the clear injustice inflicted upon Justice Torkornoo. Ghana must not let this chapter close without accountability,” he said.
According to him, the events leading to Justice Torkornoo’s removal represented a troubling moment for Ghana’s democracy and judicial independence.
Mr. Ahiagbah alleged that the process was rushed and politically motivated, claiming that constitutional safeguards intended to protect the independence of the judiciary were disregarded.
“We saw an unprecedented and hurried process against Chief Justice Torkornoo, with a committee whose conclusion seemed predetermined before its proceedings concluded, the deliberate public humiliation of one of the highest judicial officers in the land, and a brazen disregard for the constitutional safeguards designed precisely to protect the independence of our institutions,” he stated.
The NPP Communications Director maintained that the issue extended beyond the former Chief Justice and touched on the broader question of institutional independence.
“This issue is not just about Justice Torkornoo as an individual. What we face is a pattern of executive conduct that systematically weakens institutions, intimidates independent-minded officials, and steadily consolidates political control over a branch of government intended to operate free of partisan interference,” he said.
Mr. Ahiagbah further described Justice Torkornoo’s legal challenge as a significant moment in Ghana’s democratic history.
“Justice Torkornoo’s effort to defend her rights and her office will be remembered as a historic moment in Ghana’s democratic journey. It stands as an act of courage amid political persecution,” he added.
He also called on Ghanaians to remain vigilant in defending judicial independence, warning that any perceived weakening of the judiciary could have consequences for all citizens.
“A weakened judiciary risks not only political opponents but every citizen. Today, it’s Justice Torkornoo. Tomorrow, it could be you or your neighbour,” Mr. Ahiagbah said.
Background
Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo filed two applications at the Community Court of Justice of the Economic Court of West African States (ECOWAS) for the enforcement of her human rights over what she says is a blatant disregard for her right to a fair hearing guaranteed by both Ghana’s 1992 constitution and the 1991 protocol of the Community Court of Justice.
The main application and the motion for provisional measures were filed and received at the registry of the Community Court of Justice in Abuja, Nigeria, on 4 July 2025.
It was filed by Femi Falana SAN of Falana & Falana Chambers in Nigeria, for and on behalf of the then Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo. The applications were served in Ghana through the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
Under the rules of the Community Court of Justice, Ghana has 5 days to respond to the motion for provisional measures and 30 days to respond to the main application seeking the enforcement of the Chief Justice’s fundamental human rights. Delays in the filing process and amendments to the original application contributed to the final hearing not being held earlier.
CJ’s contention
Among other points, the ousted chief justice contends in her application that the violation of her right to a fair hearing is grounded in the fact that she was not given a copy of either the supposed prima facie determination or the reasons for the making of a prima facie finding by the president before the president and the disciplinary committee formed, suspended her.
The application further posits that the president’s purported prima facie determination, as communicated in the warrant of suspension and a letter to CJ Torkornoo dated 22 April 2025, did not exist because there was no document containing reasons or justification for stating that a prima facie case had been established against her. The warrant of suspension was unaccompanied by a determination that set out the elements of judicial or quasi-judicial reasoning expected under the constitution.
“Fairness implies that the president, in making the prima facie determination with the Council of State, must specify the particular charges in respect of which a prima facie case is deemed to have been established and the reasons for the same.
“The president’s letter failed to do this. It simply stated that a prima facie has been found against the applicant without more. To date, the applicant does not know the reasons for the president saying that a prima facie case has been established against her.
“Yet a committee has been formed and is working. The president’s purported prima facie determination was no determination at all, as it failed to meet the standard of a judicious and objective assessment and, as such, was arbitrary and capricious,” the application by the Chief Justice read in part.
Reliefs sought
To this end, Justice Torkornoo is seeking ten forms of relief from the Community Court of Justice. First is a “declaration that the suspension of the applicant (Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo) as the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana by the president of the respondent’s state on 22 April 2025 violated the applicant’s human rights to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights”.
Second, “a declaration that the panel instituted by the respondent (Ghana) to investigate and determine the allegations of misconduct against the applicant was not constituted to guarantee its independence and impartiality and as such has violated the applicant’s human right to fair hearing guaranteed by Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.”
Third, “a declaration that the purported suspension of the applicant as the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana by the president of the respondent state on 22 April 2025, constitutes a violation of her human right to fair, equitable, and satisfactory conditions guaranteed by Article 15 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights”.
Fourth, “a declaration that the purported suspension of the applicant as the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana by the president of the respondent state on 22 April 2025 has exposed her to public ridicule and odium locally and internationally, and the said act constitutes a violation of her human right to dignity guaranteed by Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights”.
Fifth, “a declaration that by subjecting the applicant to an illegal and unfair investigation and trial since April 2025, the respondent has inflicted injuries on her professional standing and image, thereby exposing her and her family to immeasurable public ridicule”.
Sixth, “an order to the respondent republic to act immediately to prescribe the rule of procedure to govern the investigation of allegations of misconduct against the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana in conformity with the right to fair hearing guaranteed by the constitution of Ghana and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights”.
Seventh, “an order directing the respondent to immediately lift the suspension and restore the applicant to full office until the conclusion of fair constitutional proceedings”.
Eighth, “an order restraining the respondent from continuing with the purported inquiry for the removal of the applicant as the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana in its current form, until it conforms to fair hearing guarantees”.
Nineth, “an award of US$10 million as compensation for moral and reputational damages suffered by the applicant as a result of her illegal suspension and unfair investigation”, and lastly, “any other relief(s) as the Honourable Court deems just”.
