Former Chief Justice Torkornoo Seeks Supreme Court Review of May 28 Rulings in Removal Case

Former Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo has gone back to the Supreme Court, asking it to review key orders it issued on 28th May 2026 in cases tied to petitions for her removal from office.

In a Motion on Notice filed under Article 133 of the 1992 Constitution and Rules 54, 55 and 56 of the Supreme Court Rules, Justice Torkornoo wants the apex court to revisit its 28th May decision made after two related suits were consolidated.

*Grounds: Miscarriage of justice*

Her application, backed by an affidavit, argues that the orders that day caused a miscarriage of justice and breached her constitutional right to be heard.

The affidavit says that during case management, the Court noted she had no legal representation present. Her lawyer at the time, Godfred Yeboah Dame, had filed a notice withdrawing from the case. The Attorney-General, a defendant in both suits, was also absent.

Justice Torkornoo contends that although the Court acknowledged it could not assume Dame had notified her of his withdrawal, it still went ahead to make major procedural decisions.

*Orders being challenged*

Those decisions included:

1. Moving ahead with hearing and determining the case

2. Adopting memoranda of issues from both suits

3. Consolidating the two actions

4. Adjourning the consolidated case for judgment

She says the combined effect of those orders creates “exceptional circumstances” that justify a review.

*Service issues raised*

The affidavit also claims the Court’s directive that she be personally served with the 28th May proceedings and related notices was not followed. Instead, on 12th June 2026, the Registrar served the office of her lawyer in a separate matter, Kwabena Adu-Kusi, who was out of the country at the time.

Justice Torkornoo adds that registry checks showed the Registrar had secured an ex parte order allowing service on the lawyer rather than on her directly.

She is asking the Supreme Court to set aside or review the 28th May orders on grounds of fairness and proper procedure.