Former Chief Justice, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, has filed a formal reply at the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice in Abuja, contesting the government’s defence in her case over removal from office.
In her submission, Torkornoo disputes the Attorney General’s claims that proper procedures were followed in handling three petitions against her in 2025.
She argues that the President and the Committee investigating the petitions failed to provide her with copies of the alleged prima facie determinations before acting, thereby breaching Article 146 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution.
Procedural breaches
Torkornoo contends that the inquiry panel heard only part of one petition, adjourned the remaining two without notice, and submitted its report to the President, thereby denying her the opportunity to submit or adopt written responses.
She describes the hearings as “a charade,” citing the lack of cross-examination and withholding of vital documents.
The former Chief Justice also challenged the panel’s composition, noting that Justices Pwamang and Asiedu had previously adjudicated cases arising from the petitions.
She said their involvement violated the principle of nemo judex in causa sua — no one should judge a case in which they have a personal interest.
Leaked petitions?
Her filing further rejects the government’s assertion that she leaked petitions or influenced related Supreme Court cases, and calls into question the validity of the President’s warrant of suspension issued on April 22, 2025.
Torkornoo is seeking recognition of procedural violations, restoration of entitlements, and compensation for reputational, financial, and professional harm.
The filing was prepared by prominent Nigerian human rights lawyers Femi and Funmi Falana and their team.
Torkornoo has argued that her removal without due process threatens judicial independence and undermines public confidence in Ghana’s judiciary.
AG’s Defence
The Attorney General had mounted a strong defence for the President and the Council of State, indicating that they were not required to issue a reasoned legal opinion when making a prima facie determination on petitions seeking the removal of Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.
Deputy Attorney General Justice Srem-Sai argued that a prima facie determination under Article 146 of the Constitution is a policy decision, not a judicial one, and is therefore not subject to judicial review.
He said the absence of a constitutional instrument to guide the process does not invalidate the President’s actions.
ECOWAS Court Sitting
The Community Court of Justice of the Economic Court of West African States (ECOWAS) at its last sitting in November 2025, dismissed an application filed by Ghana challenging its jurisdiction to hear an application filed by Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo for the enforcement of her human rights over what she says is a blatant disregard to her right to a fair hearing, guaranteed by both Ghana’s 1992 constitution and the 1991 protocol of the Community Court of Justice.
Ghana, represented by the Deputy Attorney General, Justice Srem-Sai, sought to challenge the court’s jurisdiction to hear Justice Torkornoo’s application.
But at the court dismissed the challenge, noting that Justice Gertrude Torkornoo has a prima facie case of a violation of her fundamental human rights and that the court therefore has jurisdiction to hear the case.
In Justice Torkornoo’s application for provisional measures, the ECOWAS Court refused to grant provisional measures because the application was filed on 4 July 2025, three clear months after the suspension warrant was issued. The court directed that it would rather deal with the substantive human rights application before it.
To this end, the ECOWAS court has ordered Ghana to file its response to the application filed by Justice Gertrude Torkornoo within the next 30 days, since the nation refused to file the same using their application challenging the jurisdiction of the court as the basis for the refusal to respond to the pending application of Justice Torkornoo. Ghana filed its response on 17 December 2025, 2 days before the court-imposed deadline.
During the hearing, the deputy attorney general also sought an order from the court directing the lawyers representing Justice Torkornoo to withdraw an application they had filed for a default judgment, as Ghana had refused to respond to the substantive action before the court.
However, Justice Torkornoo’s lawyers indicated that they will not withdraw the substantive application because they believe Ghana will not respond to it if they withdraw the application for a default ruling.
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 five 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.
The 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 letter to CJ Torkornoo dated 22 April 2025, contained no reasons or justification for stating that a prima facie case had been established against her, and was entirely devoid of 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 case has been found against the applicant without further detail. 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 then chief justice read in part.
