The Human Rights Division of the High Court in Accra has struck out the suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo’s originating motion for judicial review in its entirety as an “abuse of court process.”
The Court presided over by Justice Kwame Amoako said parts of the reliefs she sought have either been dealt with or are properly pending before the Supreme Court.
Whilst the other legs of the reliefs which bothered on proceedings under the article 146(8) committee, the Court said it had no jurisdiction to deal with them.
It said decisions of the Supreme Court on mothers on provisions in the constitution are binding on the High Court.
The Court said, the request being sought by the suspended Chief Justice have either been dealt with by the Supreme Court or are properly pending before the apex Court.
The dismissal followed an application from the Attorney General that her action request has been affected by grave misstatement of capacity and non-inclusion of mandatory and essential parties to the motion, which renders the originating process a nullity.
Deputy Attorney General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, who represented the state, following the striking out of the case waived cost.
The suspended Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo who was not physically present in Court had Kwabena Adu-Kusi, Esq as her lead lawyer.
Legal Affairs Correspondent, Murtala Inusah, reports that, what this means is that, the Court having upheld the Attorney General’s submission, the case d is not cross t here threshold of being examined.
*AG’s case*
The Attorney General on July 1 filed an application at the Human Rights (Division) of the High Court in Accra to “Strike out” Chief Justice’s Application file on June 8 for Judicial Review.
The application, stated that the Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo’s application has been affected by grave misstatement of capacity and non-inclusion of mandatory and essential parties to the motion, which renders the originating process a nullity.
It added that, either the application has been dealt with by the Supreme Court or is still pending before the apex court, and therefore, the High Court cannot review the same matter.
The suspended Chief Chief in her application for Judicial Review, challenges the propriety of the five member Committee investigating the merit or otherwise of three petitions seeking her potential removal.
In her action, she sued the Article 146 Committee, (1st Defendant) and its Chairman of the Committee, Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang (2nd Defendant).
She named Justice Samuel Kwame Adonu-Asiedu, a Justice of the Supreme Court and a committee member as (3rd Defendant), Daniel Yao Domelevo, (4th Defendant), Major Flora Bazaawaabnuba Dalugo, (5th Defendant), Prof. James Sefah DZISAH, (6th Defendant) and Attorney General (7th Defendant).
In an affidavit in Support to the motion disposed to by Reginald Nii Odoi, a State Attorney at the AG’s Office stated that the Deputy AG Dr Justice Srem-Sai will have the motion moved on July 15.
The affidavit argued that the Chief Justice’s application is affected by grave misstatement of capacity and non-inclusion of mandatory and essential parties to the motion, which renders the originating process a nullity.
The affidavit of the AG highlighted earlier actions dealt with by the Supreme Court since the suspension of the CJ.
“That I am advised, and I verily believe the same to be true that the Applicant/Respondent’s originating motion is affected by grave misstatement of capacity and non-inclusion of mandatory and essential parties to the motion.
“That I am advised, and I verily believe the same to be true that misstatement of capacity or non-inclusion of mandatory and essential parties to a motion go to capacity and to jurisdiction and, thus, render the originating process a nullity,” the motion stated.
It also highlighted several cases pending before the Supreme Court that are related to the Chief Justice’s application, including: Her Ladyship, Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Torkornoo v The Attorney-General & 5 Others (Suit No. J8/113/2025).
The rest are – Centre for Citizenship Constitutional Electoral Systems LBG (CenCes) v the Attorney-General & 2 Others (Suit No. J1/20/2025), Vincent Ekow Assafuah v The Attorney-General (Suit No. J1/18/2025)
– Ebenezer Osei-Owusu v The Attorney-General (Suit No. J1/19/2025) and Theodore Kofi Atta-Quartey v Attorney-General (Suit No. J8/109/2025)
The affidavit in support stated further that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to consider or determine matters that have been previously decided by the Supreme Court or are properly pending before the Supreme Court for determination.
*Reliefs sought*
The reliefs being sought at the High Court which have been strike out are as follows
1. A declaration that the proceedings of May 15, 2025 held by the Respondents in connection with the petitions for removal ofthe Chief Justice were a nullity as they violated the rightofthe Applicant to beheard and to be represented by counsel pursuant to article 282 of the 1992 Constitution;
2. A declaration that to the extent that the Registry of the Respondent has failed to provide to the parties authenticated copies of the Petitions andAnswers oftheparties to establish the authenticated Petitions and Answers for the inquiry that the Respondent was set up to conduct the Respondent is proceeding in arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable manner that violate Articles 23 and 296 of the Constitution and all proceedings conducted bythe Respondent are therefore rendered void and a nullity;
3. An orderof Prohibition, prohibiting the Respondents from undertaking any proceedings, without the Registry of the Respondent providing copies of the Petitions and Answers referred to the Respondentsby the President to the Parties to establish the authenticated copies o ft h e Petitions a n d Answers
4. A declaration that the proceedings of the Respondents including the proceedings held onMay 15, 22, 23, 26th and 30th 2025 were held in breach ofArticles23, 146, 280, 295 of the 1992 Constitution, and Order 2 Rule 2, Order 2 Rule 7,Order 7 rule 3(1), Order 32, Order 34 Rule 2 (2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 CI 47 and are therefore void and nullity;
5. A declaration that the proceedings of the Respondent, to the extent that it is being conducted as adversariallitigation without authenticated Petitionsand Answers filed in the Registry of the Respondent, or issues settled by the Respondent, constitute a violation of the spirit and letter of Order 2 Rule 2, Order 2 Rule7, Order 7rule 3(1), Order 32, Order 34 Rule 2 (2) High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 CI 47 and article 23 and 296 ofthe 1992 Constitution and are therefore null andvoid
6. A declaration that the proceedings of the Respondent, to the extent that it is being conducted as adversarial litigation instead of afull, faithful and impartial inquiry into authenticated Petitions and Responses issuedfrom the Registry of the Respondent, constitute a violation ofArticle 23, article 296,Article146 (3), 146(7), 280 (1) andarticle 295 oft h e Constitution and are therefore a nullityand void;
7. A declaration that the Respondents are not properly and lawfully constitutedpursuant to article 156 (1) and thereby all proceedings undertaken or made before the Respondents are wrongful, illegal, unconstitutional and void;
8. An order bringing up into this court for the purpose of quashing and accordingly quashing, all the proceedings undertaken before the Respondents
9. Any other order as to this Court will seem fit
*Grounds of application*
i. The Respondents are not properly and legally constitutedunder Article 156 to conduct the quasi-judicial proceedings required of an article 146 Committee.
ii. That the Respondents violated the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice and article 282 of the 1992 Constitution on 15 May 2025, and further acted arbitrarily, unreasonably and capriciously in violation of article 23 and article 296 of the 1992
Constitution, leading to the conduct of void proceedings on that date
iii. That the Respondents have, by failing to provide to the parties the Petition, Answer and Prima Facie determination that are to form the basis for the enquiry, violated all constitutional requirements for the conduct of a full, impartial enquiry into their alleged terms of reference there by rendering the proceedings they are conducting null and void.
iv. That the Respondents have, by choosing to regulate the proceedings affecting the Applicant as adversarial litigation between the parties and subject to the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004, CI 47, without first serving on the parties, authenticated pleadings that are to form the basis for the adversarial litigation, have violated all requirements for the conduct ofadversarial litigation, thereby rendering the proceedings they are conducting null and void.
End
