Torkonoo’s symbol is missing at Supreme Court – Amaliba claims – Life Pulse Daily

Introduction: The Missing Symbol of Justice

In a recent stir within Ghana’s legal and political spheres, Abraham Amaliba, a legal scholar and former Director of Legal Affairs for the National Democratic Congress (NDC), has raised serious concerns about the removal of Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, Ghana’s former Chief Justice. The controversy centers on the alleged absence of her portrait in the Supreme Court’s ceremonial gallery—a claim Amaliba frames as a symbolic act of institutional erasure. This incident has reignited debates about judicial independence, historical accountability, and the integrity of Ghana’s constitutional safeguards. Amaliba’s statements, delivered during a televised interview on Joy Prime’s Prime Insight, position the missing symbol as a tangible manifestation of systemic efforts to diminish Torkornoo’s legacy. The article explores the legal, political, and ethical dimensions of this controversy, examining its broader implications for Ghana’s judiciary and democratic governance.

Analysis: Institutional Implications of Symbolic Erasure

1. Constitutional Framework for Judicial Removal

The removal of a Chief Justice in Ghana is governed by Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, which mandates a rigorous process involving a judicial inquiry committee and findings of misconduct or incompetence. Amaliba highlights that Justice Torkornoo’s removal, which occurred just over a year into her four-year term, deviated from these procedural safeguards. Critics argue that the expedited process undermined judicial autonomy, suggesting political interference under the guise of constitutional obligation. The lack of transparency in the inquiry’s conclusions further fuels skepticism about the legitimacy of the decision.

2. The Symbolism of Absence: Portrait Removal as Historical Revisionism

Amaliba’s reference to the missing portrait underscores the psychological impact of removing symbols of authority. In judicial institutions, commemorative displays serve as historical records of leadership. The omission of Torkornoo’s image—despite the presence of other Chief Justices—implies her tenure is being intentionally erased from institutional memory. Amaliba draws a parallel to totalitarian regimes that revise history by altering monuments, arguing that such acts violate principles of judicial dignity and continuity.

3. Psychological and Cultural Dimensions of Erasure

The emotional resonance of the missing symbol extends beyond legal technicalities. For Ghana’s legal community, Justice Torkornoo’s absence in the Supreme Court gallery may demoralize current and future judges, signaling that their contributions are disposable. Culturally, it challenges Ghana’s narrative of progress, particularly regarding gender representation in leadership. As the country’s third female Chief Justice, Torkornoo’s removal—and the denial of her symbolic presence—raises concerns about inclusivity and respect for historical milestones.

Summary: Key Takeaways from the Controversy

Amaliba’s critique centers on three interconnected themes: the procedural irregularities of Torkornoo’s removal, the symbolic violence of erasing her portrait, and the ripple effects on judicial morale. The controversy highlights tensions between political influence and constitutional protocols, with debates about whether the removal process adhered to Article 146. Amaliba emphasizes that judicial independence is not merely procedural but deeply tied to how institutions memorialize their leadership. His broader argument—that Ghana’s judiciary risks becoming a politicized entity—demands urgent reflection on balancing democratic oversight with legal impartiality.

Key Points: Understanding the Controversy

1. Legal Procedures for Judicial Removal

• Constitutional Basis: Article 146 stipulates that a Chief Justice can only be removed via a two-thirds presidential vote following a judicial inquiry with specific findings of misconduct. Amaliba alleges that these steps were insufficiently upheld in Torkornoo’s case.
• Transparency Concerns: Critics argue that the lack of public access to the inquiry’s proceedings undermines accountability, creating a precedent for opaque removals.

2. Institutional Impact of Symbolic Acts

• Legacy Preservation: Removing a Chief Justice’s portrait is interpreted as denying their historical contributions, akin to “cultural genocide” in extreme contexts.
• Judicial Morale: The absence of Torkornoo’s image may deter women and minorities from pursuing judiciary careers, fearing similar erasure.

3. Political and Cultural Repercussions

• Separation of Powers: Amaliba warns that conflating judicial leadership with political agendas erodes the separation of powers, a cornerstone of Ghana’s democracy.
• Public Trust: The controversy risks diminishing public trust in the judiciary’s ability to function impartially, especially if perceived as a tool of political retribution.

Practical Advice: Safeguarding Judicial Integrity

To uphold judicial independence, Ghana must ensure transparency in removal processes and prioritize historical accountability. Civic education campaigns can reinforce the importance of constitutional safeguards, while legal reforms might expand public access to judicial inquiry records. Institutions like the Supreme Court should establish clear protocols for maintaining records of Chief Justices, including designated spaces for their portraits. Civil society organizations could advocate for legislation that codifies the protection of judicial leaders’ historical legacies, ensuring their contributions remain visible in institutional spaces.

Points of Caution: Navigating the Debate

While Amaliba’s criticisms warrant scrutiny, it is crucial to avoid conflating criticism of the leadership process with baseless accusations of political witch-hunting. Legal analyses must differentiate between valid procedural concerns and speculative claims about motives. Additionally, discussions about symbolic erasure should remain grounded in Ghana’s specific cultural context, avoiding comparisons to authoritarian regimes that misrepresent local dynamics. Responsible discourse requires balancing empathy for affected individuals with rigorous examination of institutional practices.

Comparison: Similar Cases in Global Jurisdictions

This controversy mirrors debates in other jurisdictions where judicial leaders’ removals sparked constitutional crises. For example, South Africa’s 2011 Judicial Service Commission inquiry into Chief Justice Robert Madala faced criticism for its handling of process and transparency. Similarly, in the U.S., the impeachment of Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1799 highlighted tensions between political influence and judicial independence. While procedural details vary, these cases underscore a global pattern: the politicization of judicial oversight risks undermining democratic foundations. Comparing Ghana’s situation to these precedents can guide reforms to strengthen impartiality and accountability.

Legal Implications: Constitutional and Human Rights Considerations

Article 146(3) of Ghana’s Constitution outlines the procedure for removing a Chief Justice, emphasizing the need for “findings of misbehaviour or incompetence” by the necessary majority of the Judicial Council. If the inquiry violated these conditions, the removal may be legally contested. Additionally, the omission of Torkornoo’s portrait raises human rights concerns under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which protects cultural dignity (Article 22). Legal scholars might argue that the denial of her symbolic presence constitutes a violation of her right to have her contributions recognized, particularly as a trailblazing female leader in Ghana’s judiciary.

Conclusion: Toward a More Equitable Judiciary

The controversy surrounding Justice Torkornoo’s removal and the subsequent disappearance of her symbol in the Supreme Court is not merely about one individual but reflects broader challenges to judicial integrity in Ghana. Amaliba’s assertions compel a critical examination of how institutions balance political oversight with the sanctity of judicial independence. Upholding constitutional principles and preserving the legacy of leaders like Torkornoo are essential to maintaining public trust and ensuring the judiciary remains a pillar of democracy. Addressing these issues requires a national commitment to transparency, accountability, and respect for the historical contributions of all its leaders.

FAQ: Addressing Common Questions

What legal grounds justify the removal of a Chief Justice in Ghana?

Under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, a Chief Justice can only be removed through a two-thirds majority vote by Parliament following a judicial inquiry that establishes misbehavior or incompetence. The process must adhere strictly to constitutional timelines and transparency requirements.

Why is the removal of a Chief Justice’s portrait considered significant?

Portrait displays in judicial institutions serve as historical records of leadership. Removing a Chief Justice’s image is seen as an act of erasure that undermines the dignity of their service and challenges the continuity of judicial legacy.

How might this controversy affect Ghana’s judiciary?

If perceived as politically motivated, the removal could erode public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality. It may also deter qualified individuals from pursuing judicial roles, fearing similar treatment, and weaken the institution’s long-term stability.

What steps can Ghana take to prevent such controversies in the future?

Strengthening oversight mechanisms, ensuring public access to judicial inquiry proceedings, and establishing clear guidelines for preserving the historical records of judicial leaders could enhance transparency and accountability. Legal reforms to codify these protections would further safeguard judicial independence.