Supreme Court dismisses Justice Torkornoo’s affidavit in landmark ruling

The Supreme Court has struck out the supplementary affidavit filed by suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, ruling that its contents violated constitutional provisions requiring certain proceedings to be held in camera.

The five-member panel, presided over by Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, upheld an objection raised by Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, who argued that the affidavit contained details of the committee investigating the petitions for Justice Torkornoo’s removal—information that should remain confidential under Article 146 (8) of the Constitution.

Legal Grounds for the Ruling

The court determined that the affidavit disclosed proceedings that should not be made public, thereby violating constitutional guidelines. As a result, the judges ruled that the document “does not form part of the evidence on record” and ordered it to be struck out.

Justice Torkornoo had filed the affidavit in support of her injunction application, which sought to halt the work of the Pwamang Committee, the body currently reviewing petitions for her removal. However, the Supreme Court’s decision means that the affidavit cannot be used as evidence in her legal challenge.

Implications for Justice Torkornoo’s Case

This ruling is a setback for Justice Torkornoo, who has been fighting her suspension and impeachment proceedings. Her legal team, led by former Attorney-General Godfred Dame, had argued that the affidavit was crucial in demonstrating procedural flaws in the committee’s work.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has also dismissed her injunction application, allowing the Pwamang Committee to continue its hearings on the petitions against her.

Reactions and Next Steps

Legal analysts suggest that Justice Torkornoo may explore other legal avenues to challenge her suspension. Some experts believe that the ruling reinforces the confidentiality of impeachment proceedings, ensuring that sensitive judicial matters remain protected from public scrutiny.

With the committee’s work set to continue, all eyes will be on the next phase of Justice Torkornoo’s legal battle and whether she will seek further judicial intervention.