The High Court has adjourned proceedings in the ongoing legal battle between suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo and the Attorney General to July 31, 2025, when it will deliver its decision on a motion seeking to strike out the Chief Justice’s application for judicial review.
Chief Justice Torkornoo, currently the subject of impeachment proceedings under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, has filed a certiorari application, arguing that the process is violating her fundamental human rights. The application, which challenges the legality of the impeachment mechanism, follows the dismissal of three previous injunction applications by the Supreme Court, all of which sought to halt the impeachment pending interpretation of constitutional provisions governing the removal of a sitting Chief Justice.
In court on Wednesday July 23, legal teams representing both sides locked horns over whether the Attorney General is obligated to provide “further and better particulars” in response to a letter from the Chief Justice’s lawyers, submitted as Exhibit CJ1.
Arguments on Legal Disclosure
Counsel for the Chief Justice, Kwabena Adu-Kusi and Solomon Aubin, submitted that under Order 11 Rule 12(3) and (6) of the court rules, their request is legitimate and seeks factual clarity—not legal advice. They argued that statements made by the respondents in their motion to strike out raise factual matters that require elaboration, such as which specific Supreme Court decisions or pending cases are being relied upon and which essential parties were allegedly omitted from the original application.
The Attorney General, represented by Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, rejected this assertion, describing the request as an improper attempt to extract legal advice from an adversary. “Respectfully, we do not believe that an adversary has a duty to provide a litigant with legal advice,” Dr. Srem-Sai submitted. He further contended that the request amounts to an attempt to preemptively undermine the motion to strike out—citing Ahinakwa II v. Okaija III as authority that bars litigants from using court processes to overreach a pending objection.
Chief Justice Responds
The Chief Justice’s lawyers dismissed the relevance of the Ahinakwa precedent, stating it dealt with procedural amendments, not requests for particulars. They maintained that the rules of court permit such inquiries where clarity is needed for an effective response to allegations raised in affidavits.
Justice Torkornoo’s team concluded with a formal prayer requesting the court to compel the Attorney General to furnish the requested particulars, arguing that this is necessary for the fair and efficient determination of the matter.
Court’s Directions and Timelines
After hearing both sides, the court directed the following:
The Respondents/Applicants (Attorney General and others) must file their written legal submissions in support of the motion to strike out the Chief Justice’s application by close of day Monday, July 28, 2025.
The Applicant/Respondent (Chief Justice) must file her written submissions in opposition by Tuesday, July 29, 2025.
All parties are to address the court under eight specific legal issues, including whether the application duplicates matters already decided or pending before the Supreme Court, the authority of the deponent to the motion, and whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain exhibits from the Article 146 impeachment committee proceedings.
Parties must also file soft copies of their written submissions by midnight on the respective filing days.
The matter has been adjourned to July 31, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., for the court’s ruling on the Attorney General’s motion to strike out the Chief Justice’s certiorari application.
BY HANSON AGYEMANG
Read also
Death prophecies: ‘Don’t blame me when Shatta Movement rises’ – Shatta Wale warns
