Confusion Rocks NDC Over New Chief Justice Torkornoo

The minority National Democratic Congress (NDC) in Parliament appears to be in a dilemma over the approval or otherwise of the next Chief Justice (CJ) who was recently nominated by President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.

Members of the minority in the Appointments Committee of Parliament indicated that they could only evaluate Justice Gertrude Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo and recommend for her approval or disapproval to be appointed as the new Chief Justice based on one condition.

According to them, it was only after they have evaluated the Supreme Court reasoned judgement in the matter of James Gyakye Quayson and his removal from Parliament as a member for Assin North, that they would either reject or recommend the approval of the CJ nominee.

Reasoned judgement of the case is expected to be given by the highest court of the land on 7^th June, 2023.

The minority led by Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson have insisted that the decision on Justice Torkornoo be deferred for them to ask her a second round of questions on the judgment.

However, the CJ nominee has been recommended for approval to head the Judicial arm of government by a majority decision of the Appointments Committee following her vetting on Friday.

Chairman of the committee Joseph Osei-Owusu argued that there was no basis for deferring the decision after every member on the committee was given the opportunity to ask questions when she appeared before them.

According to him, the Minority side came to the vetting with the position that the recommendation on the Chief Justice nominee should be deferred.

Mr. Osei-Owusu who is also the First Deputy Speaker of Parliament contended that the decision on her recommendation cannot be deferred after vetting just because the Minority side want to read a judgment on the Gyakye Quayson case.

“They (Minority) came to the vetting with a position, do this for me or I don’t. We went through the vetting and clearly we are satisfied that there is no basis for deferring the decision just because we want to read the judgment on Gyakye Quayson.

“Because they (Minority) have not read the judgment, they won’t support her, it is one of a fix position versus what is there.

“We recommend her for approval by a majority decision,” Mr Osei-Owusu stressed.

He indicated that the committee will go ahead with its report by a majority decision instead of a consensus to the plenary for consideration.

Mr. Osei-Owusu who is also the MP for Bekwai explained that after the public vetting and when the committee members went into a meeting like they normally do after every vetting, the Minority side brought up that issue of the outstanding Supreme Court full written ruling on the Gyakye Quayson case.

But the end of the public hearing, the Appointments Committee Chairman announced that “nobody has been refused the permission to ask a question. Every opportunity has been afforded members to ask any questions they want. After the conclusion, we have to take a decision. Now I ask, what will be the justification for deferring the decision.

“I don’t have any justification to defer this decision because of a matter which has been concluded by a panel (on Gyakye Quayson) and not her (Torkornoo). Even if she is the one who writes the judgment of the Supreme Court, she will be writing on behalf of the panel, reporting the group’s decision. So what is the basis for deferring,” Mr Osei-Owusu told Citi FM.

He said there was “absolutely no basis for recalling her for a second meeting for vetting.”

‘No bias in political cases’

The Chief Justice nominee has dismissed accusations of bias in the Supreme Court’s handling of political cases.

She explained that a unanimous decision by the highest court indicates that the ruling is based on legal grounds rather than bias.

“When a unanimous decision is reached, it signifies that the law unequivocally supports the court’s position, and every member of the court, in adherence to their judicial oath, cannot take a different stance. It reveals what the law truly entails.

“Therefore, the only appropriate response is to understand and learn from the legal principles, as it is not a matter of bias, but a matter of upholding the legal position,” Justice Torkornoo clarified.

Some members of the NDC including former President John Dramani Mahama have publicly criticized the Supreme Court, claiming bias after a series of defeats in the election petition hearings.

According to them, the court tends to favour the New Patriotic Party (NPP) during cases involving the two parties.

However, Justice Torkornoo gave further elucidation that people may lose cases due to technicalities and subsequently search for excuses to explain their losses.

She said it was important for individuals to have solid understanding of legal principles before passing judgments.

Contempt summons

Justice Torkornoo also defended the Supreme Court’s decision to issue contempt summons to individuals who make derogatory remarks or tarnish the reputation of the apex court.

She stressed that summoning individuals for contempt serves as a mechanism to uphold the dignity and reputation of Ghana’s courts.

“The use of contempt summons has long been employed by courts to prevent the court’s reputation from being undermined.

“The Supreme Court is one of 400 courts, and it represents the final authority. Whenever the court takes action, whether it’s the High Court, Court of Appeal, or Supreme Court, it is to safeguard the integrity of the justice system”, Justice Torkornoo explained.