Torkornoo asks Supreme Court to review rulings on her removal case

Former Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo has filed an application at the Supreme Court seeking a review of orders made by the Court on May 28, 2026, in proceedings relating to petitions for her removal from office.

In a Motion on Notice filed pursuant to Article 133 of the 1992 Constitution and Rules 54, 55 and 56 of the Supreme Court Rules, Justice Torkornoo is asking the apex court to review its ruling delivered on May 28, 2026, following the consolidation of two related actions before the Court.

The application is supported by an affidavit in which Justice Torkornoo argues that the orders made by the Court on that date resulted in a miscarriage of justice and denied her the constitutional right to be heard.

According to the affidavit, the Court had noted during case management proceedings that there was no legal representation for her in a case she was represented by Godfred Yeboah Dame after he filed a notice withdrawing his representation.

The Court also recorded the absence of the Attorney-General, who is a defendant in both suits.

Justice Torkornoo contends that despite the Court’s observation that it could not presume she had been notified by her lawyer of the withdrawal, the Court proceeded to make a series of substantive orders.

These included proceeding with the hearing and determination of the action, adopting memoranda of issues filed in both suits, consolidating the two actions, and adjourning the consolidated matter for judgment.

She argues that these orders, taken together, constitute exceptional circumstances warranting review by the Court.

The affidavit further alleges that the Court’s directive that she be served with the proceedings of May 28, 2026, and related notices was not complied with. According to the filing, the Registrar instead served the office of her lawyer in a separate suit on June 12, 2026.

Justice Torkornoo states that the lawyer, Kwabena Adu-Kusi, was outside the jurisdiction at the time of service.

She further claims that subsequent searches at the Court registry revealed that the Registrar had obtained an ex parte order authorising service on the lawyer rather than on her personally.