The Attorney-General‘s Department, joined by six other respondents, has filed an application at the Human Rights Division of the High Court in Accra, seeking to strike out a motion for judicial review brought by Her Ladyship Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, the Chief Justice of Ghana.
The Chief Justice filed the motion against the committee established under Article 146 of the Constitution to hear petitions for her removal. She is challenging the committee’s processes and has requested judicial review of its conduct.
Get more exclusive breaking news updates on our WhatsApp channel .
In an affidavit sworn by Reginald Nii Odoi, a State Attorney acting on behalf of the Attorney-General and the other respondents, the State argues that the application is fundamentally flawed due to a misstatement of capacity and failure to include essential parties. According to the affidavit, these procedural errors go to the root of jurisdiction and render the application null and void.
The respondents include Justices Gabriel Scott Pwamang and Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu of the Supreme Court, former Auditor-General Daniel Yao Domelevo, Major Flora Bazaawaabnuba Dalugo, Professor James Sefah Dzisah of the University of Ghana, and the Attorney-General.
The affidavit further contends that the issues raised in the Chief Justice’s application have either already been resolved by the Supreme Court or are currently under consideration in several pending cases. These include Justice Gertrude Torkornoo v Attorney-General & 5 Others (Suit No. J8/113/2025), Centre for Citizenship Constitutional Electoral Systems v Attorney-General & 2 Others (J1/20/2025), and others involving plaintiffs such as Vincent Ekow Assafuah, Ebenezer Osei-Owusu, and Theodore Kofi Atta-Quartey.
Attached to the affidavit are exhibits showing relevant court documents and rulings, which the Attorney-General argues bar the High Court from proceeding with the matter due to a lack of jurisdiction.
The State is therefore asking the High Court to strike out the Chief Justice’s motion entirely, citing duplication of matters already before the Supreme Court and procedural irregularities in the filing.
