Former Special Prosecutor Martin Amidu has fiercely condemned what he sees as unconstitutional efforts to shield Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo from accountability following her suspension and the initiation of removal proceedings.
In a sharply worded opinion piece, Amidu criticised the argument that a superior court judge, such as the Chief Justice, should have the right to resign while a petition for their removal is pending. He described such reasoning as “despotic and undemocratic,” warning that it undermines the rule of law and public confidence in the judiciary.
“The arguments for the right to resign with regard to any pending petition is intended to ridicule the petitioners for exercising their constitutional right to petition for the removal of a superior court justice or to save the suspectedly guilty respondent at an inquiry,” Amidu stated.
His comments come at a time of heightened national attention on Chief Justice Torkornoo, who has been suspended pending an inquiry into a petition seeking her removal from office. A prima facie case was recently established, triggering constitutional processes to determine her fitness to continue serving in the judiciary’s highest office.
Amidu argued that pushing for a resignation at this stage not only breaches the rights of petitioners and respondents to the confidentiality of the proceedings, but also reflects backroom attempts by allies of the Chief Justice to short-circuit due process.
“Such arguments constitute tacit bargaining by perceived supporters of the petitioners and the respondent to undermine the provisions of the Article 146(4) or (6) process, as the case may be,” he noted.
He warned that invoking the right to resign in such cases reeks of a broader attempt to create a class of judges above public scrutiny, calling it “judicial exceptionalism.”
“It gives the resemblance of self-serving seeking for favours from superior court justices when made by lawyers and a misapprehension of the constitution when made by others,” he said. “It is inconsistent with the constitutional mandate enjoined on judges to discharge the sacred functions of the judicial office with the highest integrity.”
Amidu emphasized that the constitutional provisions for removing judges are designed to protect public trust in the judiciary and must be respected without exception—even when the subject is the Chief Justice herself.
“The judicial branch is the only anti-majoritarian arm of government given such enormous powers and authority over the lives and wellbeing of the people that the removal petition is the only avenue provided for in the Constitution for the sovereign citizen to hold judges accountable,” he explained.
He concluded with a strong reminder: “The 1992 Constitution holds every citizen to the standard of equal justice. And the due process of law and an unelected judge under a removal inquiry must not be an exception.”
