Daniel Ofori, the Ghanaian businessman whose petition led to the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Torkornoo from office, has chased her to the Accra High Court with an application to be joined as a party to her latest lawsuit.
Justice Torkornoo is challenging her removal as a Justice of the Supreme Court, arguing that while she could be removed as Chief Justice by the petition from Mr Ofori, her position as a judge of the apex court remains intact.
However, in his affidavit, the businessman described the central premise of the former Chief Justice’s application as flawed, insisting it lacked logical reasoning.
He argued that it was a “fallacy” for Mrs Torkornoo to suggest that the President could have acted on a petition to remove her as a Justice of the Supreme Court, while she remained both Chief Justice and a member of the court.
More Read
Baffoe-Bonnie set for historic one-year as Chief Justice
Torkonoo’s Supreme Court return a lost cause-Prof Appiagyei-Atua
Supreme Court precedent under threat: Former plaintiffs challenge executive over Guantanamo Bay detainees
‘‘Yapi Yapi’’ Chief Justice begged Mahama for honourable exit & blew it
It is a “fallacy inherent in the logic on which the application before the court is grounded… that I could have petitioned the President for the Applicant’s removal as a Justice of the Supreme Court, with the effect that the Applicant would remain Chief Justice and be a member of the Supreme Court, although removed as a Justice of the Supreme Court.”
According to Mr Ofori, the committee that investigated his petition and recommended the Chief Justice’s removal did so after he had established that Justice Torkoonoo “frequently engaged in arbitrary and unprincipled administrative interventions to serve her interests”.
The Committee, he further stated, also established how Justice Torkornoo “habitually and arbitrarily abused and misused her administrative powers, to suit her purposes”, adding “she consistently and directly interfered with and manipulated judicial proceedings to achieve her desired outcomes”.
The businessman invited the High Court to note that a reading of the former Chief Justice’s affidavit reveals that she does not contest her removal as Chief Justice; her cause of action focuses solely on her removal as a Justice of the Supreme Court.
The application, filed on behalf of Mr Ofori by Thaddeus Sory, one of the lawyers who handled the original petition by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Scot Pwamang, states, “As the person whose petition caused the removal of the Applicant, I have a direct interest in the outcome of the proceedings before the court.”
“Based on my deposition in paragraphs 18 and 19 herein, I pray the court to order that I be joined to the suit as the second respondent, so that I can be properly heard and exercise my rights as a party to the proceedings.”
Mr Ofori noted that, under Article 128(1) of the 1992 Constitution, the Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice, regardless of whether that person had previously been a Justice, and nine other Justices.
He explained that the removal of the Chief Justice automatically discharges them from the Supreme Court as a member.
“Applicant’s removal as Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana, therefore, by operation of law, also discharges her from the Supreme Court. For this reason, the statement in the warrant of removal that she was removed also as a Justice of the Supreme Court was made out of an abundance of caution, and, as the present suit shows, it was prophetic,” he said.
Although the constitutional procedures for removing a Justice of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice differ, the grounds for removal of either are the same, Mr Ofori added.
“As the person whose petition provided the foundation for the proceedings leading to the Applicant’s removal as both Chief Justice and Justice of the Supreme Court, I have an interest in this application above every other Ghanaian,” Mr Ofori stated.
The businessman further noted that, in cases of this nature, the court is obliged to give a hearing to anyone wishing to oppose an application, even if they have not been served notice, and may require such persons to file an affidavit.
“I acquired knowledge of the facts to which I depose as a result of my direct and personal involvement in the petition leading to the removal of Mrs Gertrude Araba Esaaba Torkornoo by His Excellency the President of the Republic of Ghana,” he said.
Mr Ofori added that, at the hearing, his counsel would seek leave to refer to all processes filed so far in the case as if fully incorporated into his affidavit.
He clarified that any legal matters raised in his deposition reflect advice received from his lawyers, which he believes to be accurate.
He also highlighted that, although the Applicant refers to three petitions for her removal (marked GST 2A, GST 2B, and GST 2C), only his petition (GST 2A) was investigated and resulted in her removal.
Justice Torkornoo had contended that the committee exceeded its constitutional mandate by recommending her removal not only as Chief Justice but also as a Justice of the Supreme Court, and that the President’s decision was therefore unlawful.
However, Mr Ofori argued that the Committee set up under Article 146(6) of the Constitution had no constitutional mandate to recommend that she be removed only as Chief Justice, but retained as a Justice of the Supreme Court.
He contended that the President acted lawfully in implementing such a recommendation.
Mr Ofori, maintained that the committee acted within its mandate, based on 21 counts of alleged misbehaviour he had presented, and that the President lawfully implemented its recommendations.
