Former President of the Ghana Bar Association (GBA), Sam Okudzeto, has defended former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, saying she did nothing wrong by travelling with her husband while in office.
Speaking at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) Policy Dialogue Series on Ghana’s Natural Resource Management, the veteran lawyer described such arrangements as “safety valves” — measures designed to protect public officials from moral compromises or undue influences that could undermine their integrity.
He criticised what he described as the politicisation of the former Chief Justice’s travel, urging the nation to focus on strengthening ethical governance rather than magnifying personal matters that distract institutional performance.
“When the confusion arose about the Chief Justice going with her husband, that they were making for, I said, ‘You are all stupid, because you don’t seem to understand it, that that’s a safety valve. To make sure that she’s not alone,’” Okudzeto said.
He added that such practices are standard in high-level institutions.
“I have served on the Rotary International Board, the highest level, and as a trustee, I was actually the vice chair of all the trustees of the Rotary Foundation. It’s part of the rule. You go with your spouse. You go with your spouse, there’s no temptation. You don’t go, and then you come and find a woman in your bed, or a man in your bed. That is to prevent it. So that safety valve was put there to protect the Chief Justice. And you are making a point… you don’t understand it. So please, let’s just look at the issue of our country,” he explained.
The former Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo, has also dismissed allegations made by petitioner Daniel Ofori regarding her travels, describing them as baseless and misleading.
Addressing the press on Wednesday, June 25, for the first time since her suspension and subsequent removal, Justice Torkornoo specifically responded to claims that she misappropriated public funds during her officially sanctioned vacations and failed to return a $14,000 imprest.
According to her, the travel in question was in line with her entitlements as Chief Justice, and all financial procedures were duly followed. She clarified that she travelled with her husband on one occasion and her daughter on another, both considered official vacations under her conditions of service.
She rejected the accusation that her accompanying family members should not have received per diem, stressing that the Judicial Service travel policy explicitly allows per diem for persons accompanying the Chief Justice on official travel.
