Former Member of Parliament for Akim Abuakwa South and private legal practitioner, Samuel Atta Akyea, has described the suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo as “unfortunate,” raising serious concerns about its legality under the 1992 Constitution.
His remarks follow President John Dramani Mahama’s decision to suspend the Chief Justice after a prima facie case was established in response to three separate petitions seeking her removal from office.
Speaking on Eyewitness News on Tuesday, April 22, 2025, Atta Akyea questioned whether the President acted within the bounds of Article 146 of the Constitution, which outlines the procedure for the removal of justices of the superior courts.
“It is unfortunate. In my humble view, as you mentioned, Article 146, the president became president based on the constitution, and it is staring at everybody in the face, including the president and the members of the Council of State. It is a breach before the Supreme Court, which is also defined in the constitution,” he said.
Atta Akyea also revealed that a legal application had already been filed to halt the process.
“On the back of that, there is an application for interrogatory injunction, filed on March 27, 2025, and the import of that is to restrain the president and the council of state from proceeding with the consultation process of the removal of the Chief Justice under Article 146.
“So, when the president and the council of state should ignore the application, they are in contempt of the Supreme Court. They are disrespecting the constitutional postulate they signed on to,” he added.
In response, Minister of State in charge of Government Communications, Felix Kwakye Ofosu, maintained that President Mahama had acted entirely in accordance with the Constitution.
“Every step of the way, President Mahama has shown fidelity to the 1992 Constitution. He has gone strictly by the books and done things in a way that the constitution specifically provides they should be done,” he said.
The opposing views reflect the deepening national debate over the constitutional and political implications of the Chief Justice’s suspension.
