“No Chief Justice Should Go Through This Rigmarole Again” – Sophia Akuffo Laments Torkornoo’s Removal

Former Chief Justice, Sophia Akuffo, has expressed deep concern over the removal of Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo from office, describing the process as unfair and unnecessarily harsh.

Speaking in an exclusive interview with TV3, which is yet to be aired, on Tuesday, September 2, 2025, Ms. Akuffo said no judge or Chief Justice should ever be subjected to what Justice Torkornoo endured.

“I pray to God, that no Chief Justice, no Judge should go through this rigmarole again,” she said, noting that the proceedings felt more like a treason trial than a fair inquiry.

Justice Torkornoo was officially removed from office on Monday, September 1, 2025, after President John Dramani Mahama, acting in accordance with Article 146(9) of the 1992 Constitution, accepted the recommendation of a five-member committee set up to investigate petitions against her.

According to the statement issued by the Minister of Government Communications, the committee found that the grounds of stated misbehaviour under Article 146(1) had been established and recommended her removal.

The inquiry was chaired by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, with members including former Auditor-General Daniel Yaw Domelevo, Major Flora Bazaanura Dalugo of the Ghana Armed Forces, and Professor James Sefah Dzisah of the University of Ghana.

Justice Torkornoo had been on suspension since April 22, 2025, after a prima facie case was established following three separate petitions calling for her removal.

Justice Sophia Akuffo, who also served as a Chief Justice between 2017 and 2019, argued that the process did not reflect fairness and dignity, stressing that the ordeal has set a troubling precedent for Ghana’s judiciary.

“She did not get a fair trial. Even though it is not a trial strictly speaking, it was handled as though it were a treason trial,” she said.

The removal of Justice Torkornoo has sparked widespread debate, with some viewing it as a constitutional necessity while others see it as a blow to judicial independence.