AG opposes Torkornoo’s bid to review Supreme Court orders

The Attorney-General has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss former Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo’s attempt to reopen orders made in the constitutional cases challenging processes linked to her suspension and removal from office.

In an affidavit filed through Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai, the State argues that the former Chief Justice has not shown any exceptional circumstance that would justify a review of the Court’s May 28, 2026 orders.

The Attorney-General says the application should be dismissed summarily because it does not meet the recognised grounds for invoking the Supreme Court’s review jurisdiction.

Justice Torkornoo is seeking a review of the orders made on May 28, when the Supreme Court fixed July 2, 2026, for judgment in the consolidated constitutional cases.

She argues that the proceedings of that day resulted in a miscarriage of justice because the Court proceeded without hearing from her after her former lawyer, Godfred Yeboah Dame, filed a notice withdrawing his representation.

The State disagrees.

According to the Attorney-General, the former Chief Justice and her current lawyer were aware of the withdrawal but took no step to assist the Court on the matter.

The State’s position is that actual knowledge of court proceedings cannot be defeated simply because a party later complains about formal notice.

Dr Srem-Sai argues in the affidavit that the right to be heard is not breached where a person had notice of an opportunity to be heard but failed to take advantage of it.

He further contends that no exceptional circumstance arises where a party allegedly feigns ignorance of court processes and proceedings.

The Attorney-General also rejects Justice Torkornoo’s complaint about service of the proceedings and related notices.

According to the State, the order for service was properly directed at Mr Kwabena Adu-Kusi in his capacity as counsel for the former Chief Justice.

The State says service on the chambers address of a professional lawyer is proper service on that lawyer.

It also disputes the claim that Mr Adu-Kusi’s alleged absence from the jurisdiction affected the validity of the service.

The review application arises from four constitutional actions challenging processes connected to petitions for Justice Torkornoo’s removal.

On May 28, the Supreme Court consolidated the actions into two cases.

Justice Torkornoo’s own suit, numbered J1/22/2025, was consolidated with the action filed by the Centre for Citizenship, Constitutional and Electoral Systems LBG.

The case filed by Old Tafo MP Vincent Ekow Assafuah was also consolidated with the action filed by Theodore Kofi Atta Quartey.

The seven-member panel, presided over by Justice Amadu Tanko, adopted the memoranda of issues filed by the parties and fixed July 2, 2026, for judgment.

Other members of the panel are Justices Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi, Henry Anthony Kwofie, Senyo Dzamefe, Sir Dominic Denis Adjei, Hafisata Amaleboba and Kweku Tawiah Ackaah-Boafo.

During the May 28 proceedings, the Court described Mr Dame’s notice of withdrawal as defective because there was no indication that Justice Torkornoo had been served.

The Court then adopted the processes already filed on her behalf and directed the Registrar to serve her with the proceedings of the day and the withdrawal notice.

It also indicated that if she wished to file any processes after service, she could do so before the July 2 judgment date.

Justice Torkornoo has now asked the Court to review those orders, insisting that her views should have been taken before the matter was set down for judgment.

The Attorney-General, however, maintains that the review motion is without merit and should be dismissed.