Supreme Court Unanimously Dismisses Gertrude Torkornoo’s Application

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed an injunction application filed by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, ruling that it lacked merit.

The decision was delivered on Wednesday, May 28, according to TV3’s Laud Adu-Asare, who was present in court.

Justice Torkornoo had filed the interlocutory injunction on May 26 in an attempt to halt proceedings by the committee currently probing three separate petitions seeking her removal from office.

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed an injunction application filed by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, ruling that it lacked merit.

The apex court delivered its decision on Wednesday, May 28, according to TV3’s Laud Adu-Asare, who was present in court.

Justice Torkornoo had filed the interlocutory injunction on May 26 to halt proceedings by a committee investigating three separate petitions for her removal from office.

In her supporting affidavit, the Chief Justice argued that the committee’s conduct amounted to a violation of her constitutional rights. She stated that she had been subjected to “inhuman and degrading treatment,” citing restrictions and conditions she described as unprecedented in Article 146 proceedings.

“That I respectfully seek leave of this Honourable Court to bring to the Court’s attention various developments… which evidence a complete desecration of my basic constitutional rights to a fair trial, violation of my dignity, and subjection to inhuman and degrading treatment—of a kind not meted out to even accused persons on trial for treason,” Justice Torkornoo wrote.

She further alleged that her family had been denied access to the hearing room, and that she and her lawyers were prohibited from using phones and laptops, unlike counsel for the petitioners. She described the setting of the hearing—held at the heavily secured Castle, Osu—as an added affront.

“All Article 146 proceedings, with the exception of the one I am being subjected to, had hitherto been held in a judicial facility, specifically the Courts Complex,” she noted. “The location of proceedings affecting me to a cordoned high security facility boggles the mind.”

The Supreme Court has not yet released its full reasoning behind the dismissal, but its unanimous ruling effectively clears the way for the committee to continue its inquiry.

In a formal objection filed on May 27, Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem Sai requested the Supreme Court to strike out the supplementary affidavit submitted by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo in support of her interlocutory injunction.

Representing the state, Dr. Dominic Ayine argued in the filing that the depositions in the affidavit, dated May 26, 2025, violated Article 146(8) of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees confidentiality in proceedings relating to the removal of a judge.

The objection requested the court to:

“Strike out the Plaintiff/Applicant’s supplementary affidavit dated May 26, 2025, in support of the motion on notice for an order of interlocutory injunction,” and
“Make any other orders that the Court may deem fit.”

The motion, according to Dr. Srem Sai’s notice, was set to be moved on May 28, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel for the defendants/respondents could be heard.

This objection preceded the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision on May 28 to dismiss Justice Torkornoo’s injunction application, citing lack of merit.