Suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Torkornoo has finally replied to claims of her blowing state money on her family’s private trip.
Sammy Gyamfi in an interview on Asempa FM alleged that Gertrude Araba Sackey Torkonoo spent nearly GH₵260,000 on business class air tickets and approximately $30,000 in per diem allowances for her family during the trip.
According to her, the decision to allow the Judicial Service to cover the expenses of her spouse and daughter was an exercise of her authorisation granted by the Policy on Foreign Travels by Head of the Judiciary and Superior Court Judges.
She asserted that it would be absurd to claim that she has misappropriated funds when Judicial Service policy implementers are responsible for the purchase of flight tickets and payment of per diems for her official vacations.
Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Torkornoo in her response stated, “My appointment letter, which should have been included in the original bundle as Exhibit DO1, clearly outlines the terms of my appointment as Chief Justice. These terms include two round-trip tickets for official vacations, each capped at a maximum of 14 days. Paragraph B1 of the appointment letter specifies that travel expenses, hotel accommodation, and per diem for these holidays are to be borne by the Judicial Service”.
“Undertake unlimited official travels with either his/her spouse or other person of his/her choice in a year, fully funded by the Judicial Service.”
It also states that when “accompanied by the spouse or other person, he/she shall travel on the same class of air ticket as the Chief Justice and shall be paid the equivalent of half the per diem paid to the Chief Justice.
“These policies, in place since 2010, explicitly authorise me to travel with my spouse or another designated person, such as my daughter, on official vacations.”
“Exhibit DO4 is a response provided by the Judicial Secretary to auditors seeking clarification on the expenditure for tickets purchased for my husband and daughter during my two holidays in 2023. Page 1 of Exhibit DO4 confirms that I opted to utilize the authorization in Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Travel Policy to travel with my spouse on one occasion and my daughter on the second, in full compliance with my appointment terms. The Judicial Secretary’s responses to Observation 1 and Observation 2 in Exhibit DO4 further explain the expenditure, refuting the petitioner’s claim of misappropriation,” she stated.
She added “I wish to emphasise that, as Chief Justice, I neither purchase travel tickets nor determine the per diem issued to me or my accompanying aides, security, or designated persons. These are administered by the Judicial Secretary and the Director of Finance of the Judicial Service in accordance with rates set by the Article 71 Committee on Emoluments. I am not a signatory to any account and am therefore incapable of personally misappropriating public funds related to travel or per diem”.
“The petitioner’s claim that I failed to retire imprest is untrue. I have attached evidence, signed by me and corroborated by the Judicial Secretary, showing that I spent $4,411 out of an imprest of $14,000 and retired the entirety of the remaining amount two days after returning from my journey. This documentation refutes the allegation and demonstrates adherence to financial accountability standards”, she said.
According to the Chief Justice, her appointment letter and the Judicial Service’s travel policy support her travel with her spouse and daughter during her official vacations.
Chief Justice Torkornoo added, “These are standard entitlements for the Chief Justice, akin to those provided to other heads of government, such as the President or Speaker of Parliament, under Article 57(2) of the 1992 Constitution.
Can it be suggested, by any stretch of the imagination, that when the Chief Justice travels with a designated companion as per policy, this constitutes misconduct warranting removal from office? Would Ghanaians accept that the President or Speaker misappropriated state funds by traveling with their spouse or child on official vacations provided by their terms of appointment? Such a proposition would undermine the principles of our democracy and the meaning of misappropriation,” she added.
“It is my firm belief that the nation would find the petitioner’s allegations—that the described acts constitute wrongdoing—unthinkable. These claims are not only baseless but also misrepresent the policies and procedures of the Judicial Service. I respectfully urge His Excellency the President and the eminent members of the Council of State to dismiss these allegations, as they do not warrant further consideration. The evidence provided, including Exhibits DO1, DO2, DO3, and DO4, clearly demonstrates my compliance with all applicable policies and refutes the petitioner’s claims,” her response concluded.
