The Supreme Court has unanimously struck out the supplementary affidavit filed by suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.
The court ruled that the document violated Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution by disclosing confidential impeachment proceedings. A five-member panel upheld an application from Deputy Attorney General Justice Srem Sai, who argued that the affidavit breached the confidentiality of the ongoing process.
What Happened?
On May 26, Justice Torkornoo submitted the affidavit to support her bid for an interlocutory injunction to stop the impeachment inquiry against her. She described the process as “a mockery of justice, an assault on judicial independence, and worse than the treatment meted out to persons accused of treason.”
In the filing, she alleged violations of her rights, including lack of clarity on the charges, denial of access to legal counsel, and inhumane treatment. “I do not know the specific allegations I am to answer to. I cannot even begin to prepare a defence,” she wrote.
She also said her lawyer was not recognised during the hearings, despite receiving official notices. The committee went ahead with sessions and set new dates without involving her counsel.
‘Intimidation and Violations’
Torkornoo criticized the hearing venue, the Osu Castle, a high-security location, saying it was intentionally intimidating. She said the committee allowed third-party witnesses to testify and denied her legal team access to devices.
“All Article 146 proceedings, except for mine, have been held in judicial facilities,” she noted. “Holding mine at a high-security site boggles the mind.”
According to her, the impeachment process is part of a broader attack on judicial independence. She urged the Supreme Court to act, stating that the outcome will affect all superior court judges, not just her.
The Supreme Court, however, found that the affidavit revealed information protected by Article 146(8), and thus, it struck it out of the record.
Justice Torkornoo remains suspended while the impeachment process continues. Her application for an injunction will be heard in due course.
