The High Court is set to deliver a monumental decision on July 31, 2025, that could seal the fate of suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Torkornoo.
The top judge is locked in a tense legal battle with the Attorney General, who is pushing to dismiss her plea for judicial review of her impeachment proceedings.
Chief Justice Torkornoo, currently facing impeachment under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, has launched a certiorari application, arguing that the impeachment process is a grave infringement on her fundamental human rights.
This move comes after the Supreme Court threw out three previous injunction requests aimed at halting her removal while the constitutional rules governing the process were being interpreted.
Fiery Courtroom Exchange Over “Legal Advice”
Wednesday’s court session saw an intense debate between the legal teams. The core contention? Whether the Attorney General must provide “further and better particulars” in response to a letter from the Chief Justice’s attorneys, presented as Exhibit CJ1.
Kwabena Adu-Kusi and Solomon Aubin, representing Chief Justice Torkornoo, argued their request was legitimate under Order 11 Rule 12(3) and (6) of court rules, seeking factual clarity, not legal advice.
They insisted that statements made by the respondents in their motion to strike out raised factual questions demanding further explanation, such as specific Supreme Court decisions or ongoing cases referenced, and which key parties were allegedly omitted from the original application.
However, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, representing the Attorney General, vehemently rejected this demand, labeling it an “inappropriate effort to obtain legal advice from an opponent.
” He declared, “Respectfully, we do not think that an opponent is obligated to give a litigant legal advice,” and accused the Chief Justice’s team of attempting to undermine the motion to strike out in advance, citing the precedent of Ahinakwa II v. Okaija III.
The Chief Justice’s lawyers swiftly dismissed the relevance of the Ahinakwa case, clarifying it pertained to procedural changes, not requests for details. They maintained that court rules permit such inquiries when clarity is essential to effectively respond to claims made in affidavits.
Justice Torkornoo’s team formally requested the court compel the Attorney General to provide the details, asserting it was crucial for a fair and efficient resolution of the case.
Tight Deadlines and Eight Key Legal Hurdles
After hearing both sides, the court laid down a strict timetable:
* Monday, July 28, 2025 (end of day): The Attorney General and other respondents must submit their written legal arguments supporting the motion to dismiss the Chief Justice’s application.
* Tuesday, July 29, 2025: The suspended Chief Justice’s lawyers must submit their written arguments in opposition.
All parties are mandated to address the court on eight specific legal issues. These include whether the application reiterates issues already resolved or pending before the Supreme Court, the authority of the deponent for the motion, and whether the High Court can consider evidence from the Article 146 impeachment committee proceedings.
Electronic copies of all written submissions must be provided by midnight on their respective filing dates.
The case has been adjourned to July 31, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., for the court’s definitive ruling on the Attorney General’s motion to dismiss the Chief Justice’s certiorari application.
By Philip Antoh