Lawyer Ayikoi Otoo, counsel for former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, has dismissed allegations that his client is engaged in “forum shopping” by filing multiple cases at the courts.
Otoo stressed that the narrative being circulated about the former Chief Justice having several cases pending at the Supreme Court is misleading.
“There are people who go about saying that the Chief Justice has so many cases in court and that she is involved in forum shopping. That is not true,” he said on The Forum on Asaase Radio.
Otoo clarified that under Ghana’s constitution, constitutional interpretation cases do not necessarily originate from the individual concerned.
“In a constitutional interpretation you don’t need yourself to go to court. Any Ghanaian can go to court. In the famous case of Agyei Twum, it was not Acquah who went to court to complain. It was Agyei Twum who went to say that the process used for removing him is flawed,” he explained.
According to him, out of the matters being referenced, the former Chief Justice has only one case at the Supreme Court, and even that has not been given a hearing.
“In this same case there is only one case in which the Chief Justice was involved. All the rest were not done by the Chief Justice.
“They were done by individuals who went to court. They should stop saying she has been filing cases at the Supreme Court.
“She has only one case at the Supreme Court, and they are not even giving a hearing,” Otoo noted.
He urged the judiciary to act decisively by setting dates for such constitutional cases to be heard rather than allowing misinformation to flourish.
“If they want to be true to themselves, they should set a date and hear such important constitutional matters and rule on them once and for all.
“Ghanaian citizens have gone to the Supreme Court; you don’t put it around her neck and say she has five cases pending at the Supreme Court,” he argued.
Citing one instance, he revealed that the former Chief Justice’s own judicial review application had been left without a date until the Attorney General filed a preliminary objection, at which point a hearing was granted.
“Even the first judicial review application she started, they never gave her a date until the Attorney General said it had a preliminary objection.
“And then when he filed his motion, there was a date for hearing. And then her own matter—no date had been given. And then they ended up saying the court had no jurisdiction. How can a High Court say it has no jurisdiction over an administrative body?” he queried.
