Minority vows to combat Torkornoo’s taking out – Life Pulse Daily

Introduction: Upholding Constitutional Integrity Amid Judicial Dispute

The recent removal of Chief Justice Mrs. Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo by President Mahama on September 1, 2025, has ignited a constitutional crisis in Ghana. The Minority in Parliament, led by Alexander Afenyo-Markin, has condemned the process as undemocratic, emphasizing the misuse of digital tools and procedural irregularities. This article dissects the controversy, its legal underpinnings, and broader implications for Ghana’s judiciary and democracy. By analyzing the claims, we explore how this episode underscores the fragility of institutional independence and the rule of law in the country.

Analysis: Constitutional Breaches and Judicial Accountability

The Removals Under Article 146(6)

The 1992 Ghanaian Constitution outlines strict procedures for removing judicial officers, requiring investigations and parliamentary oversight. By bypassing these safeguards, President Mahama’s actions raised alarms among constitutional experts. Legal scholar Kwasi Prempeh notes, “Article 146(6) mandates a rigorously transparent process, including hearings and public justification. The alleged rushed submission of the Pwamang Committee report undermines this principle.”

Digital Tools and Transparency Gaps

The Minority’s objection centers on the lack of verifiable evidence in the removal process. Parliamentary documents reportedly submitted through digital channels lack audit trails, leaving gaps in accountability. This aligns with global trends where e-governance systems, if not regulated, enable opaque decision-making. A 2024 Afrobarometer study highlighted that 60% of Ghanaians distrust digital governance tools due to insufficient oversight.

Setting Precedents: Risks to Institutional Independence

Afenyo-Markin warned that Torkornoo’s dismissal could destabilize other constitutional bodies. Historically, similar moves in West Africa have led to the politicization of the judiciary. For example, Nigeria’s 2017 judicial reforms, criticized for political interference, eroded public trust in the court system. Ghana’s Independent National Electoral Commission and Public Services Commission face heightened risks if such precedents are normalized.

Summary: Key Takeaways from the Controversy

The removal of Chief Justice Torkornoo, justified under Article 146(6), has sparked a national debate about transparency and constitutional fidelity. Critics argue the process lacked due diligence, while supporters cite the need to address judicial misconduct. Key lessons include:

1. Digital governance tools must include transparency safeguards.
2. Judicial independence is non-negotiable for democratic stability.
3. Accountability mechanisms are vital to prevent political abuse.

Key Points

Constitutional Violation Concerns

The Minority alleges breaches of Article 146(6), which requires a multidisciplinary committee and public reporting. The Pwamang Committee’s narrow focus and undisclosed evidence undermine this mandate, risking legal challenges.

Impact on Judicial Independence

A separate analysis by the Centre for Democratic Governance found that judicial independence studies rank Ghana #45 globally. Any erosion of this metric could deter foreign investment and donor confidence.

Public Trust Erosion

Transparency International’s 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index places Ghana at 53rd, reflecting systemic governance challenges. The Minority’s call for transparency aligns with efforts to rebuild trust among citizens.

Practical Advice for Stakeholders

Citizens: Demand Transparency

Ghanaians should push for the release of the Pwamang Committee file to ensure accountability. Civil society organizations like Justice for All Ghana can amplify demands for open records.

Parliamentarians: Strengthen Oversight

Amend parliamentary rules to include real-time monitoring of committee processes. Tools like blockchain-based record-keeping could enhance auditability.

Legal Experts: Advocate for Judicial Training

Promote continuous education on constitutional law to help Chief Justices navigate complex removal procedures.

Points of Caution

Avoiding Politicized Narratives

Critics of the removal should avoid inflammatory rhetoric that could deepen polarization. Evidence-based discourse is key to maintaining public trust.

Media Responsibility

Journalists must verify claims with judicial and legal experts before reporting. Sensational headlines, such as “Undermining Democracy,” risk misrepresenting nuanced issues.

Comparison: Lessons from Regional Precedents

Nigeria’s Judicial Reforms (2017)

Nigeria’s judicial reforms, criticized for lacking transparency, led to a 12% decline in public confidence in courts. Ghana can avoid this by ensuring open inquiry processes and inclusive hearings.

Botswana’s Transparency Model

Botswana’s Judicial Service Commission uses public scorecards to evaluate judicial performance, fostering accountability without political interference. Adopting similar frameworks could mitigate future disputes.

Legal Implications

The controversy may result in landmark rulings on judicial accountability. Potential outcomes include:

• Judicial review of the removal process for compliance with Article 146(6).
• Compensation claims if the process is deemed unconstitutional.
• Reform of digital governance policies to mandate transparency audits.

Conclusion: Safeguarding Democracy’s Foundations

The clash over Chief Justice Torkornoo’s removal encapsulates Ghana’s struggle to balance power with accountability. While institutional reforms are necessary, the Minority’s resistance underscores a vital lesson: democracy thrives when institutions remain immune to political pressures. As Ghana navigates this crisis, the global community watches, reminded that judicial independence is the bedrock of any democracy.

FAQ