High Court sets July 31 for Torkornoo case ruling
By Praisebell Rosemond Larbi
The High Court has scheduled July 31, 2025, to deliver a ruling on a crucial motion seeking to strike out the judicial review application filed by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo in the ongoing constitutional standoff surrounding her impeachment proceedings.
Justice Torkornoo, who was suspended in June following the initiation of removal proceedings under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, has filed a certiorari application at the High Court, arguing that the impeachment process infringes on her fundamental rights and violates constitutional due process.
Her action follows the dismissal of three separate injunction applications by the Supreme Court, which she filed in an effort to pause the impeachment until legal clarity is provided on key constitutional provisions regarding the removal of a sitting Chief Justice.
At the latest hearing on Wednesday, July 15, legal teams representing both the Chief Justice and the Attorney General clashed over whether the Attorney General should be compelled to provide further and better particulars in response to a letter submitted as Exhibit CJ1 by the Chief Justice’s legal team.
Counsel for the Chief Justice, Kwabena Adu-Kusi and Solomon Aubin, cited Order 11 Rule 12(3) and (6) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules to justify their request. They argued that the motion to strike out raised factual claims that required clarification, not legal interpretation.
They maintained that the respondents must disclose which Supreme Court decisions they are relying upon, as well as identify which necessary parties were allegedly omitted from the original suit, facts they say are vital for an informed legal rebuttal.
However, Deputy Attorney General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, who appeared for the state, dismissed the request as inappropriate and described it as an attempt to extract legal advice from a courtroom adversary.
“Respectfully, we do not believe that an adversary has a duty to provide a litigant with legal advice,” Dr. Srem-Sai argued.
He cited Ahinakwa II v. Okaija III, a Supreme Court precedent, as authority against the misuse of disclosure requests to frustrate preliminary objections.
In response, the Chief Justice’s lawyers contended that the Ahinakwa case dealt with amendments to court processes, not legitimate requests for factual particulars. They stressed that the request was well within procedural rules aimed at ensuring fairness and clarity.
After hearing both sides, the court directed the respondents, including the Attorney General and co-applicants, to file their written legal submissions by Monday, July 28, while the applicant, Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, is to submit her response by Tuesday, July 29.
Both parties are required to address eight key legal issues, such as whether the Chief Justice’s application duplicates matters already decided or pending before the Supreme Court, the jurisdiction of the High Court to consider exhibits from the Article 146 process, and the authority of the deponent to the motion. The court further ordered that soft copies of all submissions must be filed by midnight on the respective days.
The court will deliver its ruling on the motion to strike out the Chief Justice’s application at 9:00 a.m. on July 31, 2025.
