The question being debated in Ghana right now is whether President Mahama will dismiss Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Torkornoo, who has been petitioned by a number of groups.
According to the law, President John Mahama would be in violation of the law if he attempts to dismiss Ghana’s Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo, unilaterally. This would probably have major constitutional and political ramifications.
Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, which outlines precise procedures for the dismissal of justices of the Superior Courts, including the Chief Justice, protects Ghana’s Chief Justice. The Chief Justice cannot be removed by a president without:
• A petition alleging stated misbehavior, incompetence, or inability to perform duties due to physical or mental infirmity.
• A prima facie case established by the President (after consulting the Council of State).
• The setting up of a committee by the Chief Justice—or in her case, by the next senior justice—to investigate the allegations and make a recommendation.
The judiciary is independent, and any perceived interference by the executive—especially through unconstitutional removal—would violate the separation of powers, drawing condemnation domestically and internationally.
Some Big Positions Like The Chief Justice Are Untouchable— Gloria Ofori-Boadu
Such a move would likely spark public protests, legal battles, and strong opposition from civil society, the Ghana Bar Association, and the international community. It could also be seen as an attack on judicial independence, damaging Ghana’s democratic credentials.
There will also be legal consequences if done unlawfully, and the President could face legal challenges in the Supreme Court, and the action could be overturned or declared unconstitutional.
While a President has influence, Ghana’s Constitution places clear checks on that power—especially regarding the judiciary.
