Retired Supreme Court Justice William Atuguba has sharply criticised Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo, as scrutiny over her leadership intensifies amid calls for her impeachment.
Speaking exclusively to JoyNews’ Elton Brobbey on The Pulse, Justice Atuguba questioned why certain senior justices, despite their expertise, were allegedly excluded from key constitutional cases under Chief Justice Torkonoo’s tenure.
The outspoken former judge raised concerns over a pattern of unanimous rulings and potential bias in judicial appointments, suggesting a deliberate selection of justices who deliver predictable verdicts.
He singled out Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Justices Gabriel Scott Pwamang, Justice Emmanuel Yoni Kulendi, and Justice Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu as senior Supreme Court judges who were consistently overlooked for constitutional panels.
“At the time of the ‘Unanimous FC’, what was happening? Baffoe-Bonnie, Kulendi, Pwamang, this man who has come in, Tanko. These were fairly senior judges. How often did they get onto constitutional panels? Why was it so? Were they not members of the Supreme Court? Were they not seniors? Do that research for me. Go and get the empanelment on constitutional cases under Torkonoo. You will see the trend. Let’s put pretence aside. Let’s look at what is good for Ghana and get that done. Until that is done, we will keep on moving in circles,” he declared.
READ ALSO: Atuguba accuses NPP of ‘pure hypocrisy’ over their criticisms in the CJ suspension case
Justice Atuguba also lamented political polarisation in judicial matters, urging a departure from partisan interpretations.
“If we are not able to exorcise political poison from our governance system, we will continue to suffer” he warned.
The controversy deepened when former Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame, representing Tafo MP Vincent Ekow Assafuah, objected to Justice Baffoe-Bonnie presiding over a case involving Chief Justice Torkonoo’s potential removal.
Dame argued it was “unprecedented and improper” for an Acting Chief Justice to oversee proceedings that could determine his own succession. The court, however, unanimously dismissed the objection after a brief recess.
Justice Atuguba countered Dame’s stance, recalling that Chief Justice Torkonoo herself had re-empanelled and presided over cases brought by Dame during his tenure as AG.
“Who empanelled? She [Chief Justice Torkonoo] had no interest in her own matter? Empanelling involved picking and choosing, and you think she has no interest in that?” he queried.
He added, “In hindsight, I think those decisions have to be looked at again. The fact that the Chief Justice is in office [and so] he/she must do the empanelment must be looked at again. Because they quote the provision that makes her the head of administration in the judiciary, but they overlook the introductory word – subject to the provision in this constitution….”
Justice Atuguba urged a revamp of the Supreme Court empanelment rules to align with public trust and constitutional principles.
“All powers must serve the people’s welfare. Any deviation is unconstitutional. Article 296(b) mandates candour in exercising authority—even the Chief Justice is bound by this,” he asserted.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
