Just as Charlotte Osei was removed without any precedent, CJ should be removed – Barker Vormawor
Prominent youth activist and legal scholar Oliver Barker Vormawor has waded into the ongoing public debate surrounding the potential removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, stating emphatically that a lack of precedent should not be a barrier to holding top judicial officers accountable.
In a post shared on his social media page, Barker Vormawor argued that if credible reasons exist for the removal of the Chief Justice, then due process must proceed without hesitation.
“There was no precedent for the removal of an EC boss before we removed one,” he wrote. “In our politics, the NPP are like Republicans. Always hoping Democrats will be the restrained ones, while they take a scorched earth approach.”
Context and Reactions
His statement comes in response to remarks made by the Member of Parliament for Akyem Swedru, who warned that any attempt to remove the sitting Chief Justice could amount to an “attack on the judiciary” and risk destabilizing Ghana’s democratic institutions.
The MP had earlier stated:
“The Judiciary must know that any attempts by anyone to remove the Chief Justice is an attack on the judiciary and if this attempt succeeds the entire judiciary will be completely divided and destroyed.”
He further emphasized that historically, all previous attempts to remove sitting Chief Justices had failed, and the current effort should not be allowed to succeed either.
Background
The Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo, is currently under scrutiny following a prima facie case reportedly established against her, with calls mounting for the establishment of a tribunal to look into allegations of misconduct and abuse of power—grounds cited in a petition submitted to the presidency.
Article 146(10)(a) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana grants the President the authority—acting on the advice of the Council of State—to suspend the Chief Justice pending the outcome of an investigation.
The Bigger Picture
Barker Vormawor’s stance underscores a broader debate about accountability in high offices and the perceived double standards in Ghana’s political and judicial processes. He insists that the removal of a high-ranking official should be judged on the strength of evidence and constitutional process, not on fears of institutional damage or lack of precedent.
The issue has also sparked intense public discourse, with civil society groups, legal minds, and political observersweighing in on whether pursuing such action would uphold democratic principles or undermine judicial independence.
