The Human Rights Division of the High Court in Accra has dismissed a judicial review application filed by suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo, ruling that the matter was an abuse of court process and outside the court’s jurisdiction.
The ruling, delivered by Justice Kwame Amoako, marks a significant setback in Justice Torkonoo’s legal efforts to stop impeachment proceedings initiated under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution. This is the second legal blow to her attempts to challenge the process in court.
Earlier, Justice Torkonoo filed a constitutional interpretation case at the Supreme Court, which remains pending. However, her request for an injunction to halt the proceedings until the Supreme Court ruled on the matter was rejected.
High Court Application Details
Filed on June 9, 2025, the judicial review application sought nine reliefs. These included a series of declarations alleging that the committee investigating her conduct had acted unlawfully. The Chief Justice also asked the court to halt the committee’s proceedings until she was provided with authenticated copies of the petition and her own responses.
Court’s Rationale
Justice Amoako categorized the reliefs into two broad groups: those dismissed as an abuse of court process and those struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Abuse of Court Process
The court ruled that several of the reliefs were already before the Supreme Court and should not have been brought again before the High Court. Among them were:
- Allegations that the committee was acting unlawfully due to failure by the Judicial Secretary’s office to provide certified petition documents;
- Requests to stop the committee from proceeding without authenticated materials;
- Accusations that the committee was running an adversarial rather than an impartial inquiry;
- Claims that the composition of the committee itself was unlawful.
Justice Amoako concluded that these amounted to duplicative litigation and an abuse of the judicial process.
Lack of Jurisdiction
Other reliefs were dismissed on the grounds that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain them. These included:
- Claims that the Chief Justice was denied a fair hearing;
- Allegations that her lawyers were prevented from representing her;
- Assertions of constitutional and procedural breaches;
- An application for certiorari to quash the committee’s work.
The court emphasized that it could not intervene in the internal proceedings of an Article 146 committee, which, under Article 146(8), are confidential and protected from external scrutiny.
The decision reinforces the constitutional limits placed on judicial review in disciplinary proceedings involving high-ranking judicial officers and leaves the Chief Justice’s fate squarely in the hands of the Supreme Court and the Article 146 committee.
Leave a Comment