In a dramatic turn of events, Callistus Mahama, the Secretary to the President, has expressed strong disapproval of actions taken by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo after the circulation of her private correspondence on social media.
This incident follows a series of petitions seeking the removal of the Chief Justice under Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution, which has now taken center stage in a high-profile political and judicial matter.
The situation began when three individuals submitted petitions to the President, requesting the removal of the Chief Justice.
Two of the petitions were dated February 14, 2025, while the third arrived on March 17, 2025. These petitions, raising serious allegations against the Chief Justice, were promptly forwarded to the Chairman of the Council of State on March 24, 2025, for consultation, as required by the Constitution.
The President’s intention was to seek preliminary comments from the Chief Justice before any further actions were taken.
On March 27, 2025, the Chairman of the Council of State consented to the request, and the President’s office began the formal process to notify the Chief Justice of the petitions and offer her an opportunity to respond.
However, in an unexpected development, the Chief Justice responded on March 27, 2025, by sending a letter to the President that was subsequently shared on social media platforms.
According to reports, the letter was circulated before it even reached the President’s desk.
The letter in question was not only shared publicly but also reportedly attached to a communication sent to prominent figures in the legal community, including the President of the Supreme Court, the President of the Association of Magistrates and Judges, and the President of the Ghana Bar Association (GBA).
This widespread sharing of the letter, as detailed in a subsequent letter from Callistus Mahama, has raised concerns over confidentiality and the integrity of the judicial process.
John Mahama’s letter addressed to the Chief Justice, dated March 28, 2025, expressed disappointment over the premature circulation of the correspondence.
He emphasized that, in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Frank Agyei Twum v. Attorney General and Bright Akwetey [2005-2006] SCGLR 732, confidentiality is a cornerstone of proceedings under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution.
This includes documents and materials involved in the petition process, which should not be disclosed to the public until due procedures have been followed.
In response to the breach of confidentiality, John Mahama stated that each page of the attachments to his letter would be marked as “RESTRICTED” to ensure that the integrity of the ongoing process is maintained.
He stressed that despite the current controversy, the President remains committed to following due process and ensuring that the Chief Justice will be given a full and fair opportunity to present her case.
The timing and nature of the Chief Justice’s response have raised questions about the handling of the petition process.
Critics argue that the Chief Justice’s actions may undermine the transparency and impartiality of the ongoing investigation, which could have significant implications for the judicial branch of government.
While the petitions for the Chief Justice’s removal remain a central issue, Mahama’s latest statement reflects a larger concern over the use of social media in legal and political matters.
His letter concluded with a request for the Chief Justice to submit her preliminary response within 10 days to allow for further consultations between the President and the Council of State.
