On September 1, 2025, the President of the Republic signed a warrant removing the suspended Chief Justice, Her Ladyship Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkoono. Her removal has sparked widespread debate over the legality of the process. Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution has become the subject of heated discussions, with lawyers, politicians, civil society, and even “pocket lawyers” arguing for or against its proper application.
In my earlier article, I explained why the removed Chief Justice could not return to serve as a Justice of the Supreme Court. In this piece, I argue that an elected Assembly Member is, by law, better protected from removal than even the Chief Justice, who heads the Judiciary—the third arm of government.
Article 146(1) clearly sets the grounds for removing a Justice of the superior courts or a tribunal chairman: stated misbehavior, incompetence, or incapacity due to infirmity. Where the petition involves the Chief Justice, Article 146(6) mandates the President, in consultation with the Council of State, to appoint a five-member committee—two Supreme Court Justices and three non-parliamentarians who are also not lawyers. This committee investigates the petition and recommends action. Article 146(9) requires the President to act strictly on the committee’s recommendations. Essentially, the President only serves as a conveyor belt in this process.
By contrast, removing an Assembly Member is governed by Section 10 of the Local Governance Act, 2016 (Act 936). It sets an extremely high bar. At least 25% of registered voters in the electoral area must first petition the Electoral Commission for a recall. A referendum is then required, with a minimum 40% turnout. Out of those votes, at least 60% must favor removal. Considering Ghana’s historically low voter turnout at district-level elections, these conditions make it almost impossible to remove an Assembly Member.
This comparison shows that the Constitution inadvertently offers greater protection to an Assembly Member than to the Chief Justice. While the President can influence judicial removals through Article 146, the removal of an Assembly Member is shielded by a complex and demanding process. This imbalance exposes the Judiciary to political control, undermining its independence, and poses a real threat to the separation of powers.
Ghana’s political system, deeply rooted in duopoly, often frames judicial issues through partisan lenses, further complicating the discourse. Until the law is amended to provide stronger safeguards for the Judiciary, the Chief Justice and superior court judges remain vulnerable to executive influence. Ironically, in Ghana today, an Assembly Member enjoys more legal security and protection than the head of the Judiciary.
Clement Opoku Gyamfi is a private legal practitioner, football administrator, and activist.