Ghana’s former Chief Justice, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, has filed for judicial review in the High Court, contesting her recent removal from the Supreme Court by President John Dramani Mahama.

Torkornoo, who served as both Chief Justice and a Justice of the Supreme Court, argues that her dismissal—executed through a presidential warrant on September 1—violated the due process provisions enshrined in Ghana’s 1992 Constitution.

In the case, titled The Republic v. Attorney-General, Ex Parte Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Torkornoo, the former Chief Justice contends that her removal circumvented the mandatory procedures outlined in Article 146 of the Constitution. That article requires an independent inquiry by a constitutionally established body before any justice of the Superior Courts can be lawfully removed from office.

Her petition asks the High Court to declare the President’s removal order “unlawful, null, void, and of no effect,” arguing that the presidency overstepped its constitutional authority by bypassing this process.

Torkornoo is seeking a series of judicial declarations, including that:

The President lacks the constitutional authority to remove a Superior Court judge without following the procedures set under Article 146;

The exclusive jurisdiction over any removal proceedings lies with a body established pursuant to Article 146(4);

The removal warrant issued by President Mahama is therefore unconstitutional.

The suit, filed under Articles 23 and 141 of the Constitution and pursuant to Order 55 of Ghana’s Civil Procedure Rules (C.I. 47), marks a rare and high-profile test of executive authority over the judiciary.

Legal analysts say the case could set a significant precedent regarding the scope of presidential powers and the independence of the judiciary in Ghana’s constitutional democracy.

Torkornoo, a prominent figure in Ghana’s legal system, had served on the Supreme Court since 2019 and was appointed Chief Justice in 2023. Her sudden removal earlier this month sparked sharp debate across political and legal circles, with critics warning of potential executive overreach.

A spokesperson for the Attorney-General’s office declined to comment, citing the pending nature of the litigation. The President’s office has not yet issued a formal response to the application.

The High Court is expected to schedule a hearing in the coming weeks.