The Judicial Service of Ghana has confirmed that 50 judges—comprising members of both the superior and lower courts, including Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo—were erroneously paid rent allowances between 2020 and 2022.
These payments occurred under the tenure of former Chief Justice Anin Yeboah and were later fully refunded by all recipients upon discovery of the error.
The clarification comes in response to recent criticism alleging that Chief Justice Torkornoo knowingly accepted a housing allowance while residing in an official government residence.
According to judicial service records released to the media, the allowances were disbursed in error.
Upon identifying the anomaly, the Service immediately notified the affected judges. Each one—including the current Chief Justice—returned the entire sum received, along with the tax components.
The Judicial Service also noted that once the tax portions were refunded by the judges, they were reimbursed for those amounts, in line with standard tax refund procedures.
Breakdown of payments and refunds:
Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo received GH¢152,768.40 (including tax). After repaying the full amount, she was reimbursed GH¢34,079.10 for the tax portion, making her net refund GH¢118,689.30.
Justice Janapare A. Bartels-Kodwo (Court of Appeal judge and Supreme Court nominee) received GH¢90,548.46. After refunding the full amount, she was reimbursed GH¢21,218.08, bringing her net repayment to GH¢69,330.38.
Justice P. Bright Mensah, another Supreme Court nominee, was paid GH₵105,870.40. He refunded the full amount and received GH₵23,899.42 back as the tax portion, resulting in a net repayment of GH¢81,970.98.
Justice Senyo Dzamefe, also nominated to the Supreme Court, was paid GH¢94,975.20. After a tax refund of GH¢21,992.76, he returned GH¢72,982.44.
All payments and subsequent refunds took place between 2020 and 2022—before Chief Justice Torkornoo assumed leadership of the judiciary.
Transparency commended
Observers in the legal community have praised the Judicial Service’s proactive response—identifying the error, informing recipients, and ensuring complete reimbursement—as a sign of transparency and accountability.
Despite political attempts to cast doubt on the integrity of the judiciary, the official records show no evidence of misconduct or deliberate wrongdoing.
The incident, while unfortunate, highlights the importance of strengthening internal financial systems within the judicial sector.
As the judiciary faces increased public scrutiny ahead of new appointments and anticipated public service reforms, this clarification is seen as an important step in protecting the credibility of constitutional officers and reinforcing trust in state institutions.
