The suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo by President John Dramani Mahama has triggered intense public and political debate, with strong warnings coming from members of the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP).
President Mahama recently acted on three petitions alleging misconduct against the Chief Justice.
Following constitutional procedure under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, he referred the matter to the Council of State, which then recommended the establishment of a five-member committee to investigate the claims. Based on that advice, the Chief Justice was suspended pending the committee’s findings.
However, the timing and approach of the suspension have been met with criticism. Legal analysts and civil society organizations have questioned the transparency of the process, pointing out that the petitions themselves have not been made public and that court challenges to the suspension are still ongoing.
The concern is that the move may undermine judicial independence and set a dangerous precedent for future administrations.
Former Minister of Information Fatimatu Abubakar has added her voice to the backlash, describing the suspension as politically motivated and potentially damaging to the long-term credibility of Ghana’s judicial system.
Speaking in an interview on Movement TV, she warned that any judge who accepts an appointment to replace Justice Torkornoo under the current circumstances risks facing similar treatment in the future.
According to her, the manner in which the current government has handled the suspension could encourage a cycle of retaliation that endangers the neutrality of the judiciary.
Fatimatu stated clearly that the NPP, when in office, would not hesitate to apply the same standards to any Chief Justice appointed under what they view as unfair or politically influenced conditions.
She urged the President to reconsider the process and withdraw support for the petitions against the sitting Chief Justice, noting that the role of the judiciary must be protected from partisanship.
“This is not just about one individual,” she said. “It’s about the institution and the need to safeguard its independence from executive interference.”
