The Suspension of Ghana’s Chief Justice and Its Implications for Ghana’s Democracy

The suspension of Ghana’s Chief Justice (CJ) is a rare and troubling event in the country’s democratic journey. Since the beginning of the Fourth Republic, the office of the Chief Justice has been marked by institutional stability, with no recorded suspensions or removals until 2025. Chief Justices such as Philip Archer, Isaac Abban, Edward Wiredu, and George Acquah exited office through retirement, ill health, or death, without facing any formal disciplinary processes. Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, the longest-serving and first female Chief Justice, completed her tenure despite facing public criticism and multiple petitions. Her successors, Sophia Akuffo and Kwasi Anin Yeboah, also served without interruption, reinforcing the perception that the judiciary’s leadership was shielded from executive interference.

That said, there were notable instances where petitions were filed. Justice Wood, between 2009 and 2013, faced allegations ranging from abuse of power to partisanship, particularly in politically sensitive cases. However, none of these efforts led to formal investigations or suspension. In 2021, Justice Anin Yeboah faced a petition from the Alliance for Social Equity and Public Accountability (ASEPA), accusing him of bribery. The petition was dismissed by President Akufo-Addo for lack of merit.

A historic precedent was set in April 2025 when Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo became the first in Ghana’s history to be suspended. The suspension followed the submission of three undisclosed petitions, after which President John Mahama, in consultation with the Council of State, initiated the process under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution and formed a committee to investigate the allegations. This marked the first time this constitutional procedure had been activated for a Chief Justice in the Fourth Republic.

Looking beyond Ghana, other West African democracies have faced similar controversies. In Nigeria, a high-profile case occurred in 2019 when President Muhammadu Buhari suspended Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen over allegations of failing to declare foreign bank accounts. The move, just weeks before national elections, sparked national and international outcry. In The Gambia, Chief Justices Abdou Kareem Savage and Joseph Wowo were removed under controversial circumstances. Liberia also experienced a judicial crisis in 1987 when Chief Justice Chea Cheapoo was impeached and arrested under President Samuel Doe’s regime. These cases, often politically charged, highlight the fragility of judicial independence in the region.

The Mo Ibrahim Foundation’s 2024 Governance Index revealed a sharp and sustained decline in the performance and perception of Ghana’s judiciary. Specifically, the rule of law and judicial impartiality scores dropped from 95.3 points in 2014 to 68.3 in 2023. This nearly 30-point decline reflects a weakening in the perception of judicial independence, concerns about political interference in judicial appointments, and the courts’ ability to render decisions free of external pressure.

Similarly, the World Justice Project’s 2023 Rule of Law Index recorded that Ghana dropped three places globally, ranking 61st out of 142 countries. In the Sub-Saharan Africa region, Ghana ranked 7th out of 34 countries. Afrobarometer’s 2024 survey revealed a 22-percentage-point decline in public trust in the courts between 2012 and 2024. These perceptions reflect a significant erosion of public confidence in the judiciary and its capacity to function as an impartial arbiter of justice.

These troubling indicators, including eroding public confidence, declining rule of law scores, and perceptions of external interference, have culminated in a moment of democratic reckoning. The suspension of Chief Justice Torkornoo has laid bare the structural vulnerabilities in Ghana’s checks and balances, particularly the fragility of judicial independence within the theory of separation of powers. While Article 146 provides the legal basis for the action, its rare use and the opaque nature of the process have sparked concerns that the judiciary is no longer immune to political interests. This perception, regardless of the outcome, threatens to erode judicial independence.

One of the dire consequences of such a move is the bad precedent it sets for future regimes. If a Chief Justice can be suspended without transparent and widely accepted justification, it opens the door for future governments to exploit constitutional provisions as tools of political control. This undermines the long-term stability of the judiciary by making even its highest office susceptible to political cycles and vendettas.

This development has also deepened public distrust in democratic institutions. The removal of the Chief Justice, if seen as politically motivated or lacking due process, reinforces the notion that the judiciary is vulnerable to partisan interference. This may lead to civic disillusionment and decreased engagement in democratic processes.

Finally, Ghana’s international reputation as a model democracy could suffer. The politicization of the judiciary may lead investors and global partners to question the reliability and impartiality of the country’s legal system. Unless addressed transparently and constitutionally, the CJ’s suspension could be remembered less as a moment of accountability and more as a symbol of democratic regression.

Against this backdrop, the current situation cannot be treated as business as usual. It marks a defining moment for Ghana’s democracy, one that constitutes a constitutional crisis and calls for a strong civic response. To preserve judicial integrity and democratic stability, civil society, the legal fraternity, and democratic institutions must demand transparency, due process, and accountability. More broadly, there must be a national effort to strengthen mechanisms that insulate the judiciary from political interference. If Ghanaians fail to act with vigilance and reform, the precedent set today could unravel the constitutional safeguards upon which the nation’s democracy stands.