The recent suspension of Ghana’s Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo marks a pivotal moment in the country’s judicial history, raising critical questions about institutional independence in a nation often celebrated as West Africa’s democratic exemplar. This development challenges assumptions about Ghana’s ability to shield its judiciary from political interference.
At the same time, it highlights the broader challenges that new governments face when attempting to reform judiciaries they perceive to have failed to defend democracy, or to be politically bias, after winning power. In Poland, for example, the new government of Prime Minister Donal Tusk has struggled to reform the Polish Constitutional Tribunal and other parts of the political system that were “autocratized” under the previous Law and Justice party (PiS) government.
The challenge facing Tusk and the new Ghanaian President John Mahama is how to rapidly transform a judiciary without breaking due process for the replacement and hiring of judges – a step that not only opens leaders up to the accusation that they themselves are operating in an authoritarian way, but also threatens to weaken the principle of judicial independence, and so harm democratic consolidation.
In the Polish context, Tusk is trying to play by the rules of the game, as frustrating as that can be. In Ghana, President Mahama has taken a different route, which has thrown the country into a constitutional crisis it has yet to resolve.
The story so far
President Mahama suspended Chief Justice Torkornoo in April 2025 following three misconduct petitions, marking the first time in Ghana’s history that a sitting chief justice had been suspended. The country’s apex court, the Supreme Court, later upheld the suspension in May 2025. Chief Justice Torkornoo was appointed by the former New Patriotic Party (NPP) regime under the leadership of former president Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, and she was the country’s third female chief justice.
It is important to note that prior to her current suspension, former President Akufo-Addo dismissed a petition for her removal on the basis of allegations of misconduct and incompetence due to a lack of sufficient evidence. However, things are different this time. In the December 2024 polls, the New Patriotic Party lost to the National Democratic Congress (NDC), led by former Vice President Mahamudu Bawumia. Bawumia was defeated by the current President, John Mahama.
The current petition, which is based on similar allegations of misconduct and misbehaviour, prompted the President to establish a committee to investigate the claims, as outlined in the Ghanaian constitution. A five-member committee was formed to investigate the allegations, as mandated by Article 146 of the Constitution, after Ghana’s Council of State found “prima facie” evidence against her. As the committee meets in private, it is unclear how many times Justice Torkornoo has appeared before it.
However, during a press conference, she contested the fairness and legality of the committee’s proceedings, revealing that the committee had failed to articulate the specific allegations against her. This had hindered her ability to prepare a proper defence. Members of the opposition in parliament have questioned the process, arguing that the president is attempting to influence the judiciary by removing the chief justice.
A history of judicial interference
While there is a general concern that the President’s actions could be perceived as an abuse of power, with the judiciary — the last bastion of the rule of law — being the victim, political interference in the country’s judiciary is nothing new.
In fact, since gaining independence in 1957, the country’s judicial system has faced recurring challenges involving political interference. This politicization can be traced through several distinct periods. During the era of Nkrumah (1957–1966), for example, the courts actively aided the executive and legislature in undermining democracy, leading to the total neglect of the rule of law. This collaboration between the judiciary and incumbency set an early precedent for compromised judicial independence.
Nkrumah’s regime was eventually overthrown by the military in 1966, partly due to his flagrant abuse of individual rights and liberties. The most dramatic example of political interference was witnessed during Ghana’s military rule and the Rawlings era. Under the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) led by Rawlings, three High Court judges and a retired army major were abducted and murdered. This extreme act of intimidation represented the lowest point in judicial independence in Ghana’s history.
Since Ghana returned to multi-party democracy in 1992, the judiciary has operated within a constitutional framework that guarantees its independence in theory. The Constitution enshrines the independence of the judiciary from both the executive and the legislature. However, perceptions of political influence have persisted, particularly during contentious elections and legal disputes between the two main political parties, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the New Patriotic Party (NPP).
For example, when sitting as a Supreme Court judge on the presidential election petition between the two parties, Justice Annin Yeboah (the former Chief Justice of Ghana, 2020–2023) delivered the most far-reaching dissenting opinion, calling for a total rerun of Ghana’s 2016 presidential elections, which the NPP had lost under the candidacy of Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.
Eventually, when the NPP won power, Yeboah was appointed Chief Justice. Together with the current suspended Chief Justice, former President Akufo-Addo appointed around sixty new judges to various positions within the Ghanaian judiciary. At the time, the NDC accused the Akufo-Addo-led regime of packing the courts to avoid accountability.
Although the Constitution empowers the President to appoint the Chief Justice and other Supreme Court judges with the advice of the Council of State, the recent suspension of the Chief Justice has sparked debate about its constitutionality. Some argue that the President has the power to do so, while others claim that due process was not followed.
The suspension of Chief Justice Torkornoo has further exacerbated the tension between political authority and judicial independence, raising questions about whether Ghana’s democratic institutions have truly moved beyond their history of political interference in the judiciary.
The lack of a detailed explanation for the suspension has only served to intensify concerns about the politicization of judicial processes. The Committee’s role is to investigate the allegations and make recommendations to the President, who will make the final decision.
The imperative of due process
The discovery and sharing of prima facie evidence of wrongdoing on Justice Torkornoo’s part would validate the need for further investigation. Until it is provided, scholars, civil society groups, and the country’s democracy community will remain deeply concerned about the secretive nature of the petition’s contents. At the same time, Justice Torkornoo’s decision to challenge her suspension at the ECOWAS Court of Justice demonstrates her commitment to contesting what she views as an illegal and unfair process.
Regardless of the eventual outcome of that appeal, the substantive merits of this case must take precedence – and be seen to take precedence – so that we are not left with the troubling optics of one political faction removing a chief justice appointed by their opponents simply to replace them with someone who may be more loyal. The integrity of Ghana’s judicial system depends on ensuring that due process and transparency, rather than political calculations, guide this unprecedented constitutional crisis.
Michael Asiedu is a doctoral researcher at the University of St.Gallen. His work focuses on comparative judicial politics in Africa.
