Former Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo has filed an action at the Supreme Court seeking to challenge the May 28 proceedings of the Court that fixed July 2, 2026 to deliver judgment in her consolidated case challenging her suspension and removal.
According to her, a substantial miscarriage of justice has been occasioned to her when she was not given the right to be heard prior to the apex court giving the orders on May 28.
In an action she filed against her suspension and subsequent removal from office, the apex Court on May 28 consolidated her case with one filed by Citizenship, Constitutional and Electoral Systems PLB, a Civil Society organization.
On that day, the apex Court said it would proceed with the hearing and determination of the action when Torkornoo was not physically present, and a letter from Godfred Dame, her lawyer, which it described as “defective.”
The Court then directed the Registrar of the Court to serve a copy of the proceedings together with her lawyer’s notice of withdrawal on her personally to file any processes she may wish to file before the date of judgment.
The Court also proceeded to adopt the memorandum of issues filed by the parties in Writ No. J1/20/25 and Writ No. J1/22/25, and subsequently consolidated the two actions for consideration and determination on July 2, 2026.
Order for review
In a motion for review of the orders of the Court on May 28, 2026, premised on Article 133 of the 1992 Constitution and Rules 54, 55, 56 of CI 16:
“Please Take Notice that this Honorable Court shall be moved by counsel for the Plaintiff in Writ No. J1/22/25, praying the Honourable Court to review the ruling of the Honourable Court dated 28th May 2026, in Writ No. J1/22/25,” the application stated.
With the premise above, the former Chief Justice said that Writ No. J1/22/25 was issued on her behalf by Godfred Yeboah Dame Esq. as her counsel on record against the Attorney General and the Article 146 Committee that heard the removal petitions.
She said she has also been sued as the 2nd Defendant in Writ No. J1/20/25 filed by Citizenship, Constitutional and Electoral Systems PLB, with Kwabena Adu Kusi Esq. as counsel on record.
The former CJ said that in both Writ No. J1/22/25 and Writ No. J1/20/25, she agreed that in order for the Applicant’s interests to be represented without any oversight, one lawyer would withdraw his representation so that the Applicant would be represented by one lawyer in the cases.
According to her, while consultation between the two counsel was ongoing, and before the Applicant’s Statement of Case in Writ No. J1/20/25 was filed, the Registrar of the Supreme Court served both counsel with hearing notices to appear before the Supreme Court for case management on May 28, 2026.
She said the Registrar of the Supreme Court served her counsel in the two actions with hearing notices to appear before the Supreme Court for case management on May 28, 2026.
It is her case that, on the morning of May 28, 2026, when the cases came to be heard, her counsel on record, Godfred Yeboah Dame Esq., had filed a notice withdrawing his representation as her counsel in Writ No. J1/22/25.
She said that at the conduct of the said case management proceedings on May 28, 2026, this Honorable Court duly recorded that there was ‘no legal representation for the Plaintiff in the 2nd Suit / Writ No. J1/22/25’.
The Court also recorded that the Attorney-General, who is Defendant in both suits, was absent.
The former CJ said exhibits show that the Court noted that ‘no direction for service [of the notice of withdrawal of representation by her Counsel] was made on the Plaintiff herself, and this Court cannot presume that the Plaintiff has been notified by her Lawyer of the step he has taken’.
She said in the absence of a lawyer representing her in Writ No. J1/22/25, in her absence, and in the absence of the Attorney General – meaning that all parties in Writ No. J1/22/25 were absent.
She said that notwithstanding the fact of the Court noting that it cannot presume that she had been notified by her lawyer of the step he had taken, the Court went on to make five orders.
Miscarriages of Justice
It is her application that each of the orders made inherently constitutes ‘exceptional’ circumstances which have resulted in a miscarriage of justice that “this Court ought to review its orders as provided for by Rule 54(a) and enjoined by the established jurisprudence of this jurisdiction and Court.”
She said the Court denied her the right to be heard and that denial to be heard on May 28, 2026 constitutes a substantial miscarriage of Justice.
“Contrary to the order of the Court that I be served with proceedings of 28th May 2026 together with a hearing notice, the Registrar of this Court served the office of Kwabena Adu-Kusi, my lawyer in Writ No. J1/20/25, on 12th June, 2026.
“I am advised by my Counsel and verily believe same to be true that at the time the order was served on the office of Kwabena Adu-Kusi, Kwabena Adu-Kusi was not in the jurisdiction.
“Subsequent to the return of Kwabena Adu-Kusi to the jurisdiction, the searches he has conducted in the Registry of this Court show that the Registrar sought the leave of this Court (Coram Anthony Koomson JSC) on an Ex-parte Motion to serve the processes ordered by this Honourable Court to be served on me on 28th May 2026 on Kwabena Adu-Kusi.
“The Registrar failed to comply with the Ex-parte order of this Court (Coram Anthony Koomson JSC) to serve the orders on Kwabena Adu-Kusi when it served the office of Kwabena Adu-Kusi, particularly when Kwabena Adu-Kusi was not in the jurisdiction,” the application said.
Background
The Supreme Court has fixed July 2, 2026 to determine four constitutional cases challenging the processes activated to suspend Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo and her subsequent removal as Chief Justice.
The four actions, including one filed by the former Chief Justice herself against the Attorney-General and members of the five-member committee that heard the petitions leading to her removal, have been consolidated into two cases.
The case filed by Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, suit number J1/22/2025, has been consolidated with the one filed by the Centre for Citizenship, Constitutional and Electoral Systems LBG, suit number J1/20/2025.
The action filed by Vincent Ekow Assafuah, MP for Old Tafo, suit number J1/18/2025, has been consolidated with that filed by Theodore Kofi Atta Quartey, suit number J1/21/2025.
The Apex Court panel of seven, presided over by Justice Amadu Tanko, said all the proposed Memoranda of Issues filed separately by the parties have been adopted by the Court.
The Court panel, which also includes Justices Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi, Henry Anthony Kwofie, Senyo Dzamefe, Sir Dominic Denis Adjei, Hafisata Amaleboba, and Kweku Tawiah Ackaah-Boafo, has fixed July 2, 2026 to deliver judgment on the cases.
Meanwhile, the Apex Court has rejected a letter from former Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame seeking to withdraw his legal services for the former Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo.
The Court described the letter as “defective,” adding that there was no notice to show that the former CJ was served with the notice of withdrawal, and it adopted the processes filed on record by the former AG on her behalf.
However, the panel has directed the Registrar of the Apex Court to serve the proceedings of the day and the withdrawal notice on her. The Court said that if she is minded to file any processes upon service, it should be done before the July 2, 2026 judgment date.
Source :www.kumasimail.com
