Private legal practitioner Kwame Adofo has strongly defended the embattled Chief Justice Araba Torkornoo, arguing that the allegations levelled against her do not merit even a prima facie case.
Speaking on the Asaase Breakfast Show on Wednesday (23 April), Adofo described the responses provided by the Chief Justice as “escopetary” — meaning self-explanatory and dismissive of the accusations.
“I have also seen the allegations contained in the petition and the responses… If what I’m seeing is true, then I would say the answers are exculpatory in the sense that there’s no way any judge making a judicial determination would find that there is a case for her to answer,” he asserted.
The lawyer’s comments come in the wake of public debate over a petition seeking the removal of the Chief Justice, citing alleged abuse of office and financial impropriety. The matter, which has sparked political commentary and legal scrutiny, has now been referred to a five-member committee appointed by the President.
Adofo, however, raised deep concerns over the constitutional provisions under Article 146 that allow the President, in consultation with the Council of State, to initiate the removal of a Chief Justice — a process he says is dangerously political.
“How on earth did the framers of the 1993 Constitution make it so easy to remove a Chief Justice compared to any other judge of the superior court?” he questioned. “It’s wrong. It was a disservice to this country.”
He warned that the current procedure exposes the judiciary to executive manipulation and undermines the independence of the courts. “If a judge is afraid for his own position, that judge is not going to be bold enough to make a ruling against the government,” Adofo said.
Responding to claims that the Chief Justice had conceded and offered to refund money related to the allegations, Adofo dismissed such suggestions as political propaganda. “There is no such concession in her response. If you read the details, she’s entitled to those benefits. Wherein lies the misconduct?”
The legal analyst also criticised the composition of the committee investigating the Chief Justice, arguing that the President’s power to choose its members without parliamentary involvement creates a process devoid of checks and balances. “Clearly, the president has chosen his own people. It tells you what outcome he wants,” he claimed.
He called for a constitutional review, advocating for a procedure where Parliament is involved both in the appointment and removal of a Chief Justice. “You can’t have Parliament helping to make the king but exclude it when the king is to be removed. That’s not how you guarantee security of tenure.”
“If this is allowed to stand, it will become part of our judicial history — one that will have far-reaching consequences on the courage and independence of our judges for years to come.”
The five-member committee currently investigating the petition is expected to deliver its findings in the coming weeks.
