CJ’s saga: Supreme Court delivers 5:0 and 3–2 decisions

The Supreme Court has, in a dramatic 3–2 majority decision, dismissed an injunction application that sought to halt the suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo.
The case, which has gripped the legal and political community, marks a critical turning point in the unfolding constitutional crisis sparked by the Chief Justice’s suspension by President John Mahama.
The five-member panel, chaired by Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, ruled that there were insufficient grounds to grant the injunction.
The court has set May 21, 2025, as the date for publishing its full reasoning, which legal watchers say could have far-reaching implications for the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers.

Judges split 3–2 on injunction request
Justices Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Amadu Tanko, and Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi formed the majority, dismissing the application brought by Old Tafo Member of Parliament (MP), Vincent Ekow Assifuah.
In dissent were Justices Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu and Ernest Gaewu, whose opinions are expected to be closely scrutinized when the full decision is released.
The injunction was intended to prevent the implementation of President Mahama’s directive suspending Chief Justice Torkornoo and to stop a committee established to investigate alleged misconduct until key constitutional questions were resolved.

Challenge to acting CJ’s role rejected
Central to the drama was an objection by former Attorney General Godfred Dame, who argued that it was improper for Acting Chief Justice Baffoe-Bonnie to both empanel the bench and preside over a case that directly involved his own interim leadership and his suspended predecessor.
“This is incongruous in our judicial history,” Dame argued. “If anyone benefits from these developments, it is the Acting Chief Justice. It’s quite intriguing that the Acting Chief Justice himself sat on these proceedings.”
Despite these concerns, the court unanimously rejected Dame’s objection to Baffoe-Bonnie’s participation.

Dr Justice Srem-Sai, Deputy Attorney-General, opposed the objection, calling it misconceived.
He said Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, in his acting role, was mandated to perform all required duties, and no conflict of interest existed.
Dr Srem-Sai described the matter as constitutional, stating that personal interest did not apply and Mr. Dame’s objection had no legal basis.
He described Dame’s objection as “misconceived” and argued that no legal basis existed for a claim of conflict of interest.

Dame maintains legal merit despite defeat
Although the injunction application was dismissed, Mr. Dame insisted that the narrow split among the judges suggested the challenge had legal weight.
“The 3–2 narrowness of the decision itself indicates clearly that the application no doubt had merit,” he said after the ruling.
“We await the court’s full reasoning before determining our next steps.”
He further emphasized that the case was not about personal rivalries but about protecting institutional integrity.
“This was a matter about ensuring that judicial independence is not compromised by overlapping roles or perceived bias,” Dame added.

Assifuah weighs next move
Assifuah, the applicant and Member of Parliament for Old Tafo, echoed Dame’s sentiments, saying the ruling was not the end of the legal road.
“The Supreme Court has spoken, and on the 21st of May, we will get the details of the reasoning behind the ruling, and maybe from there, we will be able to decide the next course of action,” he told reporters after the hearing.
He maintained that the court’s decision to split 3–2 showed that their arguments held considerable weight.
“It tells you that our argument was quite potent. So let’s wait for the reasoning, and after assessing it, we’ll decide what to do next,” he said.

President’s suspension of CJ sparks legal showdown
The entire legal battle was triggered on April 22, 2025, when President John Mahama suspended Chief Justice Torkornoo and appointed a five-member committee to probe a prima facie case of misconduct.
The decision ignited debate across legal and political circles, with critics questioning both the grounds and the process of the suspension.
In response, Assifuah filed the Supreme Court application to halt the presidential directive and freeze the investigative proceedings until the court ruled on key constitutional questions.

Awaiting the court’s final word
As the nation awaits the full decision on May 21, both sides remain firmly entrenched in their positions.
While the Acting Chief Justice has insisted that due process has been followed, critics remain wary of the implications this case could have on the judiciary’s credibility.
For now, the ruling has allowed the disciplinary proceedings against Justice Torkornoo to proceed, but the legal and political ramifications are far from over.