… Demands $10 Million Compensation from the State
The embattled Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo, is caught in a whirlwind of legal battles, having launched an audacious suit against the Republic of Ghana at the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Community Court of Justice.
This legal showdown, widely described as a judicial earthquake, signals a fierce resistance by the country’s top judge to what she claims is unconstitutional treatment by the state.
Details of the suit filed by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo at the ECOWAS Court have revealed a bold demand for a staggering $10 million in compensation for what she describes as moral and reputational damages.
In a voluminous and detailed application to the regional court, the Chief Justice is seeking a raft of declarations and consequential orders. These legal remedies, if granted, would not only restore her reputation but also fundamentally question the legality of her suspension and the ongoing constitutional process initiated to remove her from office.
Justice Torkornoo’s legal action, argues that her suspension by President John Dramani Mahama on April 22, 2025, constitutes a grave breach of her fundamental human rights, particularly those safeguarded under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Among the declarations sought by the embattled Chief Justice Torkornoo, is a declaration that her suspension violated her human right to a fair hearing as guaranteed under Article 7 of the African Charter.
She also seeks a declaration that the disciplinary panel constituted by the Republic of Ghana to investigate allegations of misconduct was not independent and impartial, thereby breaching her right to a fair hearing.
In addition, she requests a declaration that her suspension contravened her human right to fair, equitable, and satisfactory conditions of work, protected under Article 15 of the Charter.
The Chief Justice further claims that the suspension subjected her to public ridicule, disgrace, and odium, both within Ghana and internationally, violating her right to dignity under Article 5.
She also asserts that the entire process, from the suspension to the investigative proceedings, has severely damaged her professional image, caused trauma to her family, and subjected her to unlawful trial conditions since April 2025.
In addition to these declaratory reliefs, the Chief Justice is seeking key orders from the regional tribunal. Central among these is the award of $10 million in damages, which she claims reflects the psychological, reputational, and professional injuries she has suffered as a result of the state’s actions.
The legal action is the latest development in a saga that has gripped the nation’s judiciary and political class alike. The controversy began when President Mahama invoked Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution to suspend the Chief Justice, citing a prima facie case established by the Council of State as the constitutional trigger for initiating removal proceedings.
Article 146 of Ghana’s Constitution provides the legal framework for the removal of Justices of the Superior Courts, including the Chief Justice, and mandates the setting up of a committee of inquiry to investigate any such matters after a prima facie case has been made.
However, Justice Torkornoo maintains that the processes thus far have not adhered to principles of fairness, transparency, and independence.
This is not the Chief Justice’s first legal response to her suspension. She had earlier challenged aspects of the process in Ghana’s domestic courts, including the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Her application for an interim injunction against the Committee of Inquiry was dismissed by the Supreme Court in May 2025, on admissibility grounds, although substantive questions about the constitutionality of the process remain pending before Ghana’s superior courts.
The Chief Justice’s decision to file at the ECOWAS Court, a regional tribunal known for its active role in defending human rights across West Africa, has generated considerable debate among legal professionals and scholars.
While some legal analysts argue that domestic remedies should be fully exhausted before seeking international redress, others point out that the jurisprudence of the ECOWAS Court has consistently allowed for parallel proceedings, so long as the case is not pending before another international tribunal.
By Gifty Boateng and Prince Ahenkorah