Suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo has criticised the Justice Pwamang Committee’s proceedings, which are investigating petitions for her removal, describing them as a “mockery of justice” and a “ruse” aimed at unjustly ousting her from office. In a supplementary affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court as part of her legal challenge, Justice Torkornoo claims that her dignity and fundamental rights have been violated. She characterises the treatment she has received as inhumane and degrading and accuses the process of undermining her constitutional protections.
She also criticised the choice of venue for the hearings, which are being held in a high-security zone, unlike previous similar inquiries conducted at the Judicial Service’s Court Complex. She described the current setting as inappropriate and intimidating. Suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo has condemned the Justice Pwamang Committee’s proceedings investigating petitions for her removal, calling them a “mockery of justice” and a “ruse” to unjustly remove her from office.
In a supplementary affidavit filed with the Supreme Court as part of her legal challenge, Justice Torkornoo alleges violations of her dignity and fundamental rights, describing the treatment she has endured as inhumane and degrading, and accusing the process of desecrating her constitutional protections. She also criticised the choice of venue for the hearings, which are being held in a high-security zone, unlike previous similar inquiries conducted at the Judicial Service’s Court Complex.
She described the current setting as inappropriate and intimidating. Justice Torkornoo expressed concerns about the committee’s failure to provide a legal basis or criteria for establishing a prima facie case against her. She argued that this lack of transparency hinders her ability to understand her rights and adequately prepare her defense. Despite informing the committee of her Supreme Court challenge, she alleges that hearing dates were set without her knowledge or the involvement of her counsel, who was unavailable on the specified day.
The affidavit also disputes the committee’s decision to allow petitioners to present evidence through witnesses rather than appear in person. Additionally, Justice Torkornoo claims she has been subjected to mental distress by the committee’s actions, including denial of access to her mobile phones, invasive body searches, and refusal to admit her husband and children into the hearing room.
In contrast, she asserts that petitioners’ counsel and clients were allowed mobile phone access and received preferential treatment. She argues that these measures, coupled with the choice of Osu Castle as the hearing venue, constitute a deliberate attempt to apply psychological pressure on her.
By: Hanson Agyemang
