Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCOP) Ayamga Y. Akolgo has publicly disclosed that he was one of the petitioners who sought the removal of former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, saying he feels vindicated by the events that eventually led to her removal from office.
In a statement issued on July 2, the senior police officer and lawyer revealed for the first time his role in the Article 146 process that culminated in the former Chief Justice’s dismissal.
“I now consider it appropriate to disclose that I was one of the petitioners seeking her removal from office,” DCOP Akolgo stated.
He said that his petition was based on claims of judicial misconduct and incompetence, which he said affected him personally and undermined confidence in the judiciary’s highest office.
“The former Chief Justice abused the prestige and authority of the judicial office vested in her, and deployed it against me. She demonstrated incompetence and a lack judicial temperament, and was unfit to occupy the high office of Chief Justice,” he alleged.
According to him, his petition was motivated by a desire to uphold justice and accountability rather than political considerations.
“My petition for her removal was not founded on politics, but on the need to uphold justice and ensure accountability at the apex of the judiciary,” he said.
DCOP Akolgo further disclosed that after reviewing the petition, President John Dramani Mahama, acting in consultation with the Council of State, found sufficient grounds to trigger the constitutional removal process.
“I submitted my petition to the President, who, in consultation with the Council of State, found merit in it on its face and on the evidence presented,” he said.
He argued that the decision to proceed with the inquiry demonstrated a commitment to due process and equality before the law.
The police officer said his petition was among three separate petitions investigated by the Article 146 committee established to examine allegations against the former Chief Justice.
According to him, the committee first considered a petition filed by Daniel Ofori, during which about 20 witnesses testified and extensive documentary evidence was presented.
“A decision was made by the Committee on this first petition and a recommendation was submitted to the President, who subsequently removed the former Chief Justice from office,” he stated.
He noted that a second petition filed by Shining Stars was later withdrawn and struck out by the committee.
DCOP Akolgo said that by the time his own petition came up for consideration, Justice Torkornoo had already been removed from office following the determination of the Daniel Ofori petition.
As a result, he informed the committee that his petition had become moot because the relief being sought had effectively been achieved.
“I submitted to the Committee that my petition had become moot. It was moot because she was no longer in office to be removed should my petition succeed,” he explained.
He said lawyers for the former Chief Justice opposed that position, arguing that the committee had already determined that she had a case to answer.
However, the committee ultimately accepted the mootness argument and struck out the petition.
“Upon hearing me and Counsel, and for reasons of judicial economy, the Committee accepted the position of mootness and, in the circumstance, struck out my petition as moot,” he said.
Despite the petition being struck out, DCOP Akolgo maintained that the outcome of the overall process had vindicated his actions.
“I consider myself vindicated by the turn of events, because I submitted evidence to the President who, together with the Council of State, and on the face of the evidence, determined that the former Chief Justice had a case to answer on judicial indiscretion and incompetence,” he stated.
His disclosure sheds new light on one of the petitions that formed part of the proceedings leading to the removal of Justice Torkornoo and offers a rare glimpse into the individuals behind the constitutional process that resulted in the unprecedented outcome.
