I Have Seen The Petitions Against The Chief Justice; It Will Be A Crime Against Humanity If She Is Not Removed – Barker-Vormawor

The controversy surrounding Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo has taken a new turn as Oliver Barker-Vormawor, Convenor of the Democracy Hub, claims to have reviewed petitions submitted to President John Dramani Mahama, urging the removal of the Chief Justice. Barker-Vormawor has strongly criticized any potential dismissal of these petitions, stating that it would amount to a “crime against humanity” if President Mahama and the Council of State conclude that no prima facie case exists for her removal.

Background of the Petitions
The petitions, reportedly filed by concerned citizens, allege misconduct and abuse of office against Chief Justice Torkornoo. While the exact contents remain undisclosed, past grievances against the judiciary under her leadership include accusations of:

• Judicial bias in high-profile cases, particularly those involving opposition figures.
• Failure to uphold judicial independence amid perceived executive interference.
• Mismanagement of court processes, including delays in politically sensitive cases.

These concerns are not new. Civil society groups and legal practitioners have previously raised alarms over the judiciary’s credibility under Justice Torkornoo’s tenure, especially following controversial rulings that critics claim favored the government.

Barker-Vormawor’s Strong Condemnation
Barker-Vormawor, a prominent activist known for his #FixTheCountry campaign, argues that ignoring the petitions would undermine accountability in Ghana’s judiciary. His reference to a “crime against humanity” is hyperbolic but underscores his belief that an unaccountable judiciary perpetuates systemic injustice, affecting millions.

Legal and Constitutional Context
Under Article 146 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, a Chief Justice can only be removed for stated misbehavior or incompetence, following an inquiry by a committee appointed by the President, in consultation with the Council of State. The process requires:

1. A prima facie case established by the President and Council of State.
2. A five-member committee investigation, including senior judges and legal experts.
3. A parliamentary vote (two-thirds majority) for final removal.

If President Mahama and the Council of State dismiss the petitions, the process ends unless new evidence emerges. Critics argue that this mechanism is often politicized, with past attempts to remove judges failing due to lack of executive will.

Public and Legal Reactions
Responses to Barker-Vormawor’s claims have been mixed:

• Supporters argue that the judiciary’s integrity must be scrutinized, especially given Ghana’s democratic backsliding concerns.
• Opponents dismiss his comments as inflammatory, insisting that due process must be followed without activist pressure.
• Legal analysts caution that while petitions should be taken seriously, removal proceedings require concrete evidence, not just allegations.

The debate over Chief Justice Torkornoo’s tenure reflects deeper tensions in Ghana’s democracy. While Barker-Vormawor’s rhetoric may be extreme, his underlying concern—judicial accountability—resonates with many Ghanaians. The ball now lies in President Mahama and the Council of State’s court: their decision will either reinforce public trust in the judiciary or deepen perceptions of a captured legal system.

For now, Ghanaians await an official response, hoping the process will be transparent and merit-based—not another missed opportunity for judicial reform.

If Ghana is to uphold its reputation as a beacon of democracy in Africa, institutions like the judiciary must remain above reproach. Whether these petitions succeed or not, the discussion they’ve ignited is a necessary step toward ensuring that no branch of government is beyond scrutiny.

Source: GhanaFeed.Com