Attorney General opposes Torkornoo’s motion to the Supreme Court to review May 28 orders

The Attorney-General, through Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai, has filed a reply opposing former Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo’s motion to the Supreme Court to review its May 28 orders that fixed July 2 as the judgment day.

The former CJ alleged that the proceedings of the day should be reviewed to factor in her views, which she described as a “miscarriage of justice.”

But the State, through Dr Srem-Sai, has filed an opposition to the former Chief Justice’s prayer for a review of the Court’s decisions dated May 28, 2026.

“…Finally, I am advised, and I verily believe the same to be true, that this is a proper case where this Court ought to dismiss the Applicant’s motion summarily, the same having failed to satisfy any of the known grounds for exercising the honourable Court’s review jurisdiction,” the AG submitted.

On May 28, the Supreme Court fixed July 2, 2026, to determine four constitutional cases challenging the processes activated to suspend Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, including the committee that heard the petitions for her removal as Chief Justice.

The four actions, including one filed by the former Chief Justice herself against the Attorney-General and members of the five-member committee that heard the petitions leading to her removal, have been consolidated into two cases.

The case filed by Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, suit number J1/22/2025, which challenged the legality of the Article 146 Committee, was consolidated with another filed by the Centre for Citizenship, Constitutional and Electoral Systems LBG, suit number J1/20/2025.

Also, the action filed by Vincent Ekow Assafuah, MP for Old Tafo, suit number J1/18/2025, was consolidated with that filed by Theodore Kofi Atta Quartey, suit number J1/21/2025.

The Apex Court panel of seven, presided over by Justice Amadu Tanko, said all the proposed Memoranda of Issues filed separately by the parties had been adopted by the Court.

The Court panel, which also includes Justices Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi, Henry Anthony Kwofie, Senyo Dzamefe, Sir Dominic Denis Adjei, Hafisata Amaleboba, and Kweku Tawiah Ackaah-Boafo, fixed July 2, 2026, to deliver judgment on the cases.

The Apex Court also described a notice of withdrawal from former Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame seeking to withdraw his legal services for the former Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo, as “defective”, adding that there was no notice to show that the former CJ had been served with the notice of withdrawal, and it adopted the processes filed on record by the former AG on her behalf.

The panel then directed the Registrar of the Apex Court to serve the proceedings of the day and the withdrawal notice on her.

The Court said that if she was minded to file any processes upon service, they should be filed before the July 2, 2026, judgment date.

It was on the basis of the orders given that former Chief Justice Torkornoo is asking for a review, but the AG has opposed the request.

Excerpts from the AG’s affidavit in opposition

That in response to the averment in Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the affidavit in support, it is now, by the averments in Paragraph 6 of the affidavit in support and Exhibit GST 1, clear that the Applicant and her counsel in Writ No. J1/20/2025 (who is also the counsel herein) were fully aware of the withdrawal of the Applicant’s counsel in Writ No. J1/22/2025, and yet took no steps at all to assist the Court in that regard.

That in response to the averment in Paragraphs 18 and 19 of the affidavit in support, I am advised, and I verily believe the same to be true, that where there is evidence that a party has actual notice of a court process, proceedings, or an event, a formal record of lack of notice does not operate to erase the actual notice so received.

That in further response to the averment in Paragraphs 18 and 19 of the affidavit in support, I am advised, and I verily believe the same to be true, that the right to be heard is not violated where (as in this case) there is evidence that the person had actual notice of the opportunity to be heard and yet refused to make himself or herself heard.

That in final response to the averment in Paragraphs 18 and 19 of the affidavit in support, I am advised, and I verily believe the same to be true, that no exceptional circumstances arise where a party to a court action feigns ignorance of court processes and proceedings.

That in response to the averments in Paragraphs 20 to 23 of the affidavit in support, I am advised, and I verily believe the same to be true, that the order in Exhibit GST2 is an order to serve the processes on Mr Kwabena Adu-Kusi in his capacity as counsel for the Applicant rather than in his personal capacity.

That in further response to the averments in Paragraphs 20 to 23 of the affidavit in support, I am advised, and I verily believe the same to be true, that service at the chambers address of a professional lawyer is proper service on the lawyer, and that the absence of the lawyer from the jurisdiction (which the Attorney-General emphatically disputes) is of no moment to the effectiveness of the service so made.

That, finally, I am advised, and I verily believe the same to be true, that this is a proper case where this Court ought to dismiss the Applicant’s motion summarily, the same having failed to satisfy any of the known grounds for exercising the honourable Court’s review jurisdiction.