The Attorney-General, Dr. Dominic Akuritinga Ayine, is urging the High Court in Accra to summarily dismiss an application brought by Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, seeking to invoke the court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 141 of the 1992 Constitution.
The application, filed on September 23, 2024 challenges aspects of her removal process from office.
However, in an affidavit in opposition, sworn on behalf of the Attorney-General by State Attorney Reginald Nii Odoi, the government strongly opposes the reliefs being sought by the former Chief Justice.
The Attorney-General contends that the matter falls squarely within the constitutional processes established under Article 146 for the removal of a Chief Justice and insists that the petition under contention is still pending before the appropriate committee.
Accordingly, he argues that the entire process remains confidential (in camera) until such time as the President has acted upon the recommendations of the committee.
In the affidavit, the Attorney-General makes clear that he “shall seek the leave of this Court to refer to all the processes, which are filed in this matter as if such processes are duly exhibited” and categorically denies all allegations made in support of the motion, except those explicitly admitted.
Importantly, the affidavit points to the existence of two active petitions before the Article 146 committee seeking the removal of the Applicant, arguing that any disclosure of their contents in the current proceedings violates the confidentiality of the process.
Consequently, the Attorney-General will request the Court to strike out portions of the affidavit that refer to the contents of these petitions.
The Attorney-General further presents a constitutional interpretation of the office of the removed Chief Justice, describing it as “sui generis” or unique and not merely an extension or promotion from another judicial office.
He argues that once removed from the office of Chief Justice, the individual also ceases to hold any ex officio position on the other superior courts, including the Supreme Court.
In what appears to be a decisive argument, the Attorney-General maintains that the inclusion of “Justice of the Supreme Court” in the Presidential Warrant of Removal is not an overreach, but rather a move to clarify the legal position and ensure finality.
Summing up the government’s position, the affidavit states ‘Finally, I am advised, and I verily believe the same to be true that this is a proper case where this honourable Court ought to exercise its jurisdiction to dismiss the application.”
