Godfred Dame, the Former Attorney General and legal representative for the suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Torkornoo has stated resignation is not on the table for his client.
The former AG emphasised that due process, rule of law and constitutionalism, must prevail in Ghana.
According to Godfred Dame, the ongoing process for the removal of Chief Justice Torkornoo is flawed and argued that due process and constitutional principles have been disregarded.
He further asserted that no one can force Chief Justice Torkornoo from resigning as she will assert her rights.
Speaking to journalists, after the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the CJ injunction application against the committee Godfred Dame explained that resignation is not on the table.
Godfred Dame stated, “Due process, rule of law, constitutionalism, must prevail in Ghana”.
“That is what we seek. It is not on the account of people putting pressure on CJ to resign or do whatever that we will take any decision. The most important thing is that there must be an upholding of the rule of law in Ghana.
And we continue to assert our rights. The proper thing must be done. As far as I’m concerned, the correct thing must be done… She knows what is due process. She knows what is constitutional rights, and I think that’s what she’s asking for”, he added.
The Supreme Court yesterday 28 May 2025 struck out the injunction application filed by suspended Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.
The suspended Chief Justice sought to stop the work of the Pwamang Committee, currently hearing the three petitions for her removal.
On Wednesday, May 28, 2025, the five-member panel hearing the injunction application dismissed it by a unanimous decision.
The panel was chaired by the Acting Chief Justice, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Justice Omoro Amadu Tanko, Justice Yonny Kulendi, Justice Henry Kwofie, and Justice Richard Adjei Frimpong.
The suspended CJ in her affidavit alleged inhumane treatment, which violated her dignity, and described the ongoing proceedings as a “mockery of justice” and a “ruse” aimed at unjustifiably removing her from office.
The apex court ruled that the contents of the affidavit referred to events that occurred before the committee investigating the petitions for her removal — proceedings which, by law, are expected to be held in camera.
The Deputy Attorney General, Justice Srem Sai objected and argued that the supplementary affidavit violated Article 146(8) of the Constitution. That provision mandates that proceedings concerning the removal of justices be conducted in private with the five-member panel of the court upholding an objection.
Watch the video below:
