President John Dramani Mahama’s plan to sack the Chief Justice, Justice Araba Esaba Torkornoo has gained momentum since early April 2025, when three petitioners appealed to the President to act.
The fact that the petition by Shining Stars of Ghana was written in February, just one month after the government assumed office, attests to the seriousness with which the President plans to cow the judiciary into submission.
Last week, President Mahama suspended Justice Tokornoo based on three insubstantial and unproven petitions submitted by two individuals and a self-styled group called Shining Star of Ghana.
Many legal and political analysts have interpreted President Mahama’s action as an agenda to compel the Judicial arm of government to succumb to the executive power, with Justice Esaba Tokornoo as the obvious target.
First petition
Thanks to the power of new media, the contents of the three petitions have been made public in the digital sphere. In the first petition, Shining of Ghana appealed to the President to sack the Chief Justice because in May 2024, she recommended to President Akufo-Addo to promote five judges of the higher courts to the Supreme Court.
The group argued that her proposal for the promotion of the judges violated Article 144 of the 1992 Constitution.
They referred to Article 144(2), which states that “supreme court justices shall be appointed by the President, acting on the advice of the Judicial Council and in consultation with the Council of State with the approval of Parliament.”
They further argued that by writing to the President in her capacity as Chief Justice, she had met the grounds of stated misbehaviour, which merited her removal from office.
If President Akufo-Addo acted on Justice Tokornoo’s advice and promoted the five judges, were they not subjected to Parliamentary vetting and approval? At the time of their approval Parliament was evenly split between the NPP and NDC, with the NDC calling most of the shots.
So, where is the illegality in the Chief Justice’s actions? Did the 8th Parliament of the Fourth Republic also act illegally?
Furthermore, Shining Stars alleged that on October 15, 2024, Her Ladyship presided over a panel which determined the constitutionality or unconstitutionality when the Speaker of Parliament ruled that the NDC had become the majority and NPP the minority, even though no election has been held to that effect.
In their mind the Speaker of Parliament was not allowed to defend himself before the Supreme Court ruled. In their view, the Chief Justice had ignored the ‘Audi Alteram patern” rule of natural justice by failing to hear the other side.
However, some legal experts have punched holes in their reasoning because in that case, the Speaker of Parliament was not the person involved, it was his action that was subjected to constitutional interpretation.
Therefore, he did not need to be present to state his case. Individuals or groups can go to court to obtain an injunction against an individual or institution without the presence of the parties.
This demonstrated the inherent weakness in the petition of Shining Stars Ghana. Under any serious jurisdiction, this childish petition should not have been tolerated. In fact, Shining Stars simply failed to shine.
Second petition
The second petition is reported to have been submitted by one Ayamga Akolgo, who is also a lawyer. Mr. Ayamga wants Justice Esaba Tokornoo removed for allegedly doctoring evidence, abusing her office and being discourteous towards him in court.
According to him on November 14, 2024 in a case titled “the Republic versus High Court Sekondi the Chief Justice asked him to “stop shouting ” during his submission without provocation. He also alleged that the Chief Justice caused his arrest and detention for about two hours because he was rude and exhibited conduct that was unbecoming of a lawyer.
According to him, the Chief Justice’s order for his arrest and detention amounted to abuse of the prestige of judicial office, a breach of due process of law, and a rush of anger intended to ridicule him publicly. He further claimed that when he requested the records of the court proceedings, he was shocked that they contained no reference to his arrest and detention. This amounted to tampering with evidence and abuse of her privilege.
It can be discerned that the first set of Mr. Ayamga’s accusations was nothing short of an individual bearing a grudge against the Chief Justice in the discharge of her constitutional obligations.
If indeed the complainant had a genuine case, he could have invoked the provisions of Article 33 of the Constitution, which outlines steps aggrieved persons can take to seek justice, even against the Chief Justice.
In fact, the Chief Justice can be sued by any person who has a just cause for unfair treatment in and outside the court. The question is why did Mr. Ayamga wait for the regime change before he petitioned the President?
Third petition
The third petition was supposedly submitted by one Daniel Ofori, who leveled 21 charges against the Chief Justice, including four counts of incompetence. His case hinges on allegations that the Chief Justice used GHS361,890 public funds for her private foreign travel in 2023, which included her daughter and husband.
He further alleged that the CJ spent another $30,000 of public funds as per diem on her trip to Tanzania. In addition, he alleged that Her ladyship misappropriated GHS75,580 on another trip to Arusha, Tanzania, where she also spent $14,000 as an expense, but failed to account for it.
Finally, the petitioner alleged that the CJ interfered with judicial proceedings by using National Security personnel to seize computers during the trial of Assin North MP by the state. These, according to him, amounted to unauthorized behaviour.
But does the petitioner have the prerogative to determine what constitutes judicial interference? From my perspective, these are frivolous allegations, which lack sufficient grounds to sack a Chief Justice. Small wonder that at the time of writing last Friday, two more petitions had been sent to the Presidency, perhaps, because the first three lacked evidence and substance.
The mere use of “public funds for her private visits” without clarification amounts to nothing. We need details of the Chief Justice’s terms and conditions of service to conclude whether her trips were private or public.
In spite of the inherent flaws in the three petitions, the Council of State rubber-stamped or voted overwhelmingly to empower President Mahama to embark on the process of removing Justice Tokornoo from office. What necessitates the urgency to kick the Chief Justice out of her office?
Packing the Higher Courts
There could be other undertones for President John Mahama’s avowed goal to remove Justice Esaba Tokornoo. In a speech during the 2024 elections, then-candidate Mahama stated that President Akufo-Addo had “carried out a deliberate policy of packing the higher courts with known NPP supporters.”
He added, ‘all kinds of people who are activists of the NPP are being leapfrogged into the bench to avoid accountability when they lose power.” He promised that NDC will reverse the situation when voted to power and encouraged his party supporters to consider taking careers on the bench so the party can balance the accounts.
Many people think President Mahama’s promise to balance out Akufo-Addo’s supposed packing of the courts could be the driving force behind the impending house cleaning of the judiciary.
Whatever, the justifications, there is a serious assault on the independence of the judiciary in a manner that will not only undermine the rule of law, but also dim Ghana’s status a stable democracy in Africa.
Regional Tribunals
Other political and legal analysts have suggested that President Mahama and his government plan to resurrect the once dreaded Regional Tribunals. The 1992 Constitution provides for the establishment of Regional Tribunals as the Chief Justice may determine.
If it is indeed true that President Mahama plans to reactivate the Regional Tribunals, it is unlikely that Justice Esaba Tokornoo, will yield to the President’s plan.
This could be the overriding reason the President wants the Chief Justice out of the way. A new Chief Justice could accede to crave to create the Regional Tribunals.
As a military leader, ex-President Jerry Rawlings lamented that the current judicial system limited his desire to mete out instant justice to his political opponents. Yet, as a civilian leader, Jerry Rawlings never used the Regional Tribunals.
Records indicate that for the past 22 years of the 4th Republic, no government has seen the need to establish the Regional Tribunals. The question then is, what is the impetus for the resuscitation of the Regional Tribunals? It is intriguing why a civilian government plans to reactivate the Regional Tribunals, perhaps, to supplant the current legal system.
Composition of Regional Tribunals
The Constitution provides that the Regional Tribunals shall be composed of the Chief Justice, one chairman, and other members, who may or may not have legal backgrounds. The Chief Justice shall designate panels to sit on cases.
The Tribunals shall have jurisdiction to try such cases against the state and public interest as Parliament may prescribe by law.
Some analysts predict that if the Regional Tribunals are established, President Mahama could have the opportunity to fill the panels with his party supporters as part of his promise to balance the numbers on the judiciary.
It is also feared that with the ruling NDC having a two-thirds majority in Parliament, President Mahama could use it to pass laws for the Regional Tribunals to apply. This agenda could undermine the legitimacy of the judicial system.
If the 9th Parliament yields to executive power and engages in any unconstitutional acts, it will become a springboard for instability in Ghana.
Appellate function
Under the current practice, the courts operate in an appellate structure, from the lower to the higher courts through to the Supreme Court. On the contrary, the Regional Tribunals have appellate jurisdiction over all the cases they sit on.
This means that anyone who wants to appeal a case originally heard by a Tribunal, he or she can only appeal through the Tribunal. This arrangement constitutes a strategy to undermine the rule of law and constitutional democracy.
If the agenda to remove the Chief Justice is implemented, Ghana will become a mockery globally. Let someone inform my maternal uncle, President John Dramani Mahama, that it should not be under his tenure that Ghana will disintegrate.
I hope President Mahama will not allow the NDC’s ideology and machinery to embolden him to push the country to the brink. Coming events, they say, often cast their shadows.
