Professor Agyeman-Duah Labels CJ Torkonoo’s Removal a “Key Low Point” in Mahama’s Governance

Date: December 31, 2025 | Category: Ghana Politics & Governance

Introduction

In a significant commentary on Ghana’s constitutional democracy, Professor Baffour Agyeman-Duah, a distinguished governance expert and former Secretary-General of the Oheneba Nketia Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), has offered a critical assessment of the recent removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Torkonoo. Speaking on Joy News’ “The Pulse,” Professor Agyeman-Duah characterized the event as a “key low point” in the current administration’s governance trajectory.

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the expert’s views, the procedural context of the Chief Justice’s removal, and the broader implications for the separation of powers in Ghana. By dissecting the balance between strict constitutional adherence and the exercise of executive discretion, we explore what this pivotal moment means for the stability of the Ghanaian judiciary and the health of the nation’s democracy.

Key Points

Background

To fully understand the weight of Professor Agyeman-Duah’s comments, it is necessary to examine the context in which the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo occurred. The removal of a sitting Chief Justice is a rare and constitutionally sensitive event in Ghana, designed to be difficult to prevent political vendettas against the judiciary.

The Constitutional Framework for Judicial Removal

Under the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, the removal of a Justice of the Superior Court, including the Chief Justice, is governed by Article 127. This article establishes that a Justice can only be removed by the President acting on the recommendation of the Chief Justice, in consultation with the Advisory Council of Judiciary, or upon a resolution passed by a two-thirds majority of Parliament. This rigorous process is intended to safeguard judicial independence.

The Lead-Up to the Removal

The tenure of Chief Justice Torkonoo had been marked by various administrative controversies and friction with the executive branch regarding the management of the judiciary. Tensions escalated regarding allegations of misconduct and administrative inefficiencies. The executive initiated the process, which eventually culminated in her removal. While the government maintained that all procedural requirements were met, the opposition and civil society groups raised concerns about the speed and perceived political motivation behind the action.

Analysis

Professor Agyeman-Duah’s intervention moves beyond the binary of “legal” versus “illegal.” It introduces a third, vital dimension: “governance wisdom.” His critique serves as a case study in the complexities of constitutional rule in a developing democracy.

Strict Adherence vs. Political Discretion

At the heart of the professor’s argument is the distinction between following the letter of the law and embodying the spirit of democratic stewardship. “He followed the rules, he followed the constitutional processes,” Agyeman-Duah noted. However, he added, “if I were him I would have paused it and used my own discretion.”

This statement suggests that while the President had the right to proceed, he may have missed an opportunity to demonstrate restraint. In high-stakes governance, the removal of a Chief Justice is not merely an administrative personnel change; it is a signal to the international community and the citizenry about the government’s attitude toward the rule of law. By failing to pause, the administration may have inadvertently signaled that the judiciary is subject to the whims of the executive, regardless of the procedural correctness involved.

The Erosion of Public Trust

Trust is the currency of governance. When a constitutional process is viewed as a “low point,” it indicates a deficit in public confidence. The expert’s comments underscore that the perception of fairness is as critical as the reality of legality. If the populace believes that the judiciary is being purged for political reasons, the legitimacy of future court rulings—especially those involving the government—is compromised.

Checks and Balances in a Polarized Environment

The removal of CJ Torkonoo has exposed the fragility of checks and balances in Ghana’s Fourth Republic. While the executive has the power to appoint and, under specific conditions, remove judicial officers, the “political handling” of the matter, as highlighted by Agyeman-Duah, can undermine the separation of powers. The judiciary acts as the bulwark against executive overreach; when the head of the judiciary is removed under a cloud of controversy, the entire institution’s independence is shaken.

Practical Advice

Based on the insights from Professor Agyeman-Duah and the events surrounding the Chief Justice’s removal, here are practical considerations for strengthening Ghana’s democratic institutions and navigating similar high-stakes governance challenges.

For Policymakers and the Executive

Exercise of Discretion: Executive power should be exercised with a heavy emphasis on political prudence. In situations involving the judiciary, leaders should consider the long-term impact of their actions over short-term administrative goals. Utilizing discretion to allow for cooler heads to prevail can prevent the labeling of necessary constitutional processes as “low points.”

Transparency in Process: To mitigate accusations of political interference, the executive must ensure that the rationale for such drastic measures is communicated clearly, transparently, and well in advance of the action.

For Civil Society and Legal Observers

Vigilant Monitoring: Civil society organizations must continue to monitor the appointment and removal processes of judicial officers. Independent oversight ensures that the Advisory Council of Judiciary remains robust and not merely a rubber stamp for executive will.

Civic Education: There is a need for ongoing public education regarding the constitutional provisions on judicial independence. An informed citizenry is better equipped to distinguish between legitimate administrative oversight and political overreach.

FAQ

Conclusion

Professor Baffour Agyeman-Duah’s characterization of the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo as a “key low point” serves as a sobering reminder to the Mahama administration and future governments. It highlights that in a constitutional democracy, the legality of an action is the floor, not the ceiling, of acceptable governance. The episode underscores the vital need for executive restraint, the preservation of judicial independence, and the protection of public trust. As Ghana continues to mature politically, the wisdom to pause and reflect—rather than simply the will to act—will define the quality of its leadership and the resilience of its institutions.

Sources

• Primary Source: Joy News / Multimedia Group Limited. “The Pulse” Interview with Professor Baffour Agyeman-Duah. Date: December 31, 2025.
• Legal Framework: The 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, specifically Article 127 regarding the tenure and removal of Justices.
• Contextual Reference: CDD-Ghana (Centre for Democratic Development) reports on Judicial Independence and Governance in Ghana.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Life Pulse Daily or its parent company. This article is for educational and informational purposes only.