I no go resign - Suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo tackle Ghana govment over 'unfair hearing'
Di Chief Justice wia Ghana president don suspend don speak out for di first time since dem begin impeachment processes against her.
Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, wey be chief Justice since 2023, chop suspension afta at least three separate pipo file petition to president John Mahama say make dem remove am from office.
Di president afta im receive di three petitions forward dem to di council of state wia suppose study di petition and determine whether she gat case to answer based on dis allegations for di petitions.
Na so di council advise di president say di CJ get cases to answer wia president Mahama sign warrant to suspend her from office.
Di president also set up five-member committee say make dem investigate di petitions and hear di side of di chief Justice.
Afta di committee finish dia hearings, dem go recommend whether di allegations dey strong enough to remove her from office or not.
Since di committee begin to dey hear di matter on 15 May 2025, di suspended chief Justice and oda lawmakers don carry di case go di supreme court say make dem stop di process and declare am illegal.
But di Supreme Court for all di five cases, don dismiss di mata wia dem tok say di 5-member panel neva do anytin wrong so far for di impeachment process.
Goment bin tok say dem only dey follow di constitution wia don provide di process to remove chief Justice and oda commissioners.
Di law tok say di panel hearings gatz dey behind closed doors but since di beginning, some of di tins don leak.
Na so goment warn di suspended chief Justice say make she no leak di content of di petition wia di president don send give her to respond.
But inside supplementary affidavit wia di suspended chief Justice don file for di Supreme Court, di CJ tok say di 5-member panel don dey abuse her rights na so she wan make di court stop di process.
Di Supreme Court bin dismiss her affidavit by majority decision say she dey carry tins wey dey happun behind closed doors for di panel into di public, against di law.
Afta more than one month of di panel hearing, di suspended chief Justice don address press conference wey she tok say di whole process na "staged tin to remove her from office."
Some of di tins di suspended CJ tok
Di panel don abuse my rights for di hearing
"I bin apply to di Supreme Court say make dem scrap di provision wey say make di hearing dey behind closed door, and make dem do am for public, but di court no gree," Justice Gertrude Torkonoo tok.
'Di allegations against me neva be true'
Di suspended chief Justice also state some of di allegations inside di petitions wia she tok say dem neva be enough grounds to remove her from office
"I neva make any decision for di court on my own, di decisions by di Supreme Court na court decision even if I bin dissent wit my view."
She add say "di chairman of di panel wey dey hear di mata na Supreme Court judge wey also bin on top one case wey involve di petitioner dey raise conflict of interest."
"Dem bin accuse me say I carry my husband and my daughter to go for vacation outside di kontri two times, wia I use state moni, but for dis two vacation wia I bin dey within di judicial service conditions of service," Gertrude Torkornoo explain.
"Di conditions provide say di CJ gat to travel wit at least one pesin everytime, na so I choose to travel wit my husband and daughter on different occasions - for those trips, we even return some of di per diem up to $9.6K two days afta I don return afta I bin spend only $4,400 out of di $14,000 dem carry give me."
On di allegation say she bin write to di former president Nana Akufo-Addo say make im appoint five new judges to di Supreme Court for 2024, without consulting di judicial service, di Ghana bar association and oda groups; di suspended CJ say she neva do anitin wrong.
'I no go resign, I go fight dis mata'
Di suspended chief Justice tok say pipo don tok am say make she resign sake of di wahala don plenty wia di Supreme Court don also dismiss five cases against di impeachment process.
But Gertrude Torkonoo say she neva go resign.
"My loved ones and oda pipo bin dey call me say make I resign so say dem go stop to dey drag me for dis mata, but if I resign, e go send wrong signal say when I gatz to stand up for di law, I run away."
Justice Torkonoo further add say "even tho pipo bin dey threaten me wia some dey tok say if I comot dis mata and still remain chief Justice, dem go make I suffer, I go still pursue di mata."
"I neva go Sidon make dis flawed and opaque process to stand wia I no go tok. If I no tok, dis calculated process to achieve political agenda based on false claims, go become precedent for Ghana,"
Also "for my ova 30 years of practise as a lawyer, and ova 20 years as a judge for dis kontri, I neva collect bribe bifor, na so my integrity dey intact."
Goment respond to di suspended Chief Justice press conference
Goment don address counter press conference afta di chief Justice im press conference wia dem tok say some of di tins di CJ tok, no be true.
Tok tok pesin for di goment Felix Kwakye Ofosu say "di venue for di panel hearing (Edu Lodge) na goment facility wia di committee vim request to use di area to prevent leaking of tins during di committee hearings."
"To tok say di venue dey calculate to intimidate her na unfair to di goment, wia di venue gat no link wit wetin she tok say na di Venue dem plan wia dem kill three judges in 1981, as di chief Justice tok."
Oga Felix Ofosu Kwakye him add say "nobody fit point to one step wia di president don follow so far dey against di constitution, na di CJ wia don breach di law when she carry di mata enta public against di law."
For di mata about threats to her life, Felix Kwakye Ofosu tok say di CJ sabi wia she gatz to report issues of threat, no be di media, na di police.
Already sabi pipo bin suggest say di suspended chief justice day in contempt; as she carry di mata enta public when di law say make di panel hearing and di details of di petitions dey "in-camera".
Odas tok say wetin she gate do na to go thru di hearing process and afta if she think say she no free wit di recommendations of di committee, she fit to challenge di mata for court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
US supreme court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
The US supreme court has supported Donald Trump's attempt to limit lower-court orders that have so far blocked his administration's ban on birthright citizenship, in a ruling that could strip federal judges of a power they've used to obstruct many of Trump's orders nationwide. The decision represents a fundamental shift in how US federal courts can constrain presidential power. Previously, any of the country's more than 1,000 judges in its 94 district courts – the lowest level of federal court, which handles trials and initial rulings – could issue nationwide injunctions that immediately halt government policies across all 50 states. Under the supreme court ruling, however, those court orders only apply to the specific plaintiffs – for example, groups of states or non-profit organizations – that brought the case. The court's opinion on the constitutionality of whether some American-born children can be deprived of citizenship remains undecided and the fate of the US president's order to overturn birthright citizenship rights was left unclear, despite Trump claiming a 'giant win'. To stymie the impact of the ruling, immigration aid groups have rushed to recalibrate their legal strategy to block Trump's policy ending birthright citizenship. Immigrant advocacy groups including Casa and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (Asap) – who filed one of several original lawsuits challenging the president's executive order – are asking a federal judge in Maryland for an emergency block on Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. They have also refiled their broader lawsuit challenging the policy as a class-action case, seeking protections for every pregnant person or child born to families without permanent legal status, no matter where they live. 'We're confident this will prevent this administration from attempting to selectively enforce their heinous executive order,' said George Escobar, chief of programs and services at Casa. 'These are scary times, but we are not powerless, and we have shown in the past, and we continue to show that when we fight, we win.' The decision on Friday morning decided by six votes to three by the nine-member bench of the highest court in the land, sided with the Trump administration in a historic case that tested presidential power and judicial oversight. The conservative majority wrote that 'universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts', granting 'the government's applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue'. The ruling, written by the conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not let Trump's policy seeking a ban on birthright citizenship go into effect immediately and did not address the policy's legality. The fate of the policy remains imprecise. With the court's conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. Trump celebrated the ruling as vindication of his broader agenda to roll back judicial constraints on executive power. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,' Trump said from the White House press briefing room on Friday. 'It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation.' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a scathing dissent. She argued that the majority's decision, restricting federal court powers to grant national legal relief in cases, allows Trump to enforce unconstitutional policies against people who haven't filed lawsuits, meaning only those with the resources and legal standing to challenge the order in court would be protected. 'The court's decision to permit the executive to violate the constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law,' Jackson wrote. 'Given the critical role of the judiciary in maintaining the rule of law … it is odd, to say the least, that the court would grant the executive's wish to be freed from the constraints of law by prohibiting district courts from ordering complete compliance with the constitution.' Speaking from the bench, the liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor called the court's majority decision 'a travesty for the rule of law'. Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the 14th amendment following the US civil war in 1868, specifically to overturn the supreme court's 1857 Dred Scott decision that denied citizenship to Black Americans. The principle has stood since 1898, when the supreme court granted citizenship to Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents who could not naturalize. The ruling will undoubtedly exacerbate the fear and uncertainty many expecting mothers and immigrant families across the US have felt since the administration first attempt to end birthright citizenship. Liza, one of several expecting mothers who was named as plaintiff in the case challenging Trump's birthright citizenship policy, said she had since given birth to a 'happy and healthy' baby, who was born a US citizen thanks to the previous, nationwide injunction blocking Trump's order. But she and her husband, both Russian nationals who fear persecution in their home country, still feel unsettled. 'We remain worried, even now that one day the government could still try to take away our child's US citizenship,' she said at a press conference on Friday. 'I have worried a lot about whether the government could try to detain or deport our baby. At some point, the executive order made us feel as though our baby was considered a nobody.' The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) condemned the ruling as opening the door to partial enforcement of a ban on automatic birthright citizenship for almost everyone born in the US, in what it called an illegal policy. 'The executive order is blatantly illegal and cruel. It should never be applied to anyone,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement. Democratic attorneys general who brought the original challenge said in a press conference that while the ruling had been disappointing, the silver lining was that the supreme court left open pathways for continued protection and that 'birthright citizenship remains the law of the land'. 'We fought a civil war to address whether babies born on United States soil are, in fact, citizens of this country,' New Jersey's attorney general, Matthew Platkin, said, speaking alongside colleagues from Washington state, California, Massachusetts and Connecticut. 'For a century and a half, this has not been in dispute.' Trump's January executive order sought to deny birthright citizenship to babies born on US soil if their parents lack legal immigration status – defying the 14th amendment's guarantee that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States' are citizens – and made justices wary during the hearing. The real fight in Trump v Casa Inc, wasn't about immigration but judicial power. Trump's lawyers demanded that nationwide injunctions blocking presidential orders be scrapped, arguing judges should only protect specific plaintiffs who sue – not the entire country. Three judges blocked Trump's order nationwide after he signed it on inauguration day, which would enforce citizenship restrictions in states where courts had not specifically blocked them. The policy targeted children of both undocumented immigrants and legal visa holders, demanding that at least one parent be a lawful permanent resident or US citizen. Reuters contributed reporting
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Abstruse yet monumental: the scope and impact of the US supreme court's birthright citizenship ruling
The US supreme court opinion on Friday in a case challenging Donald Trump's attempt to unilaterally end the country's longstanding tradition of birthright citizenship doesn't actually rule on the constitutionality of the president's order. That question – of whether the president can do away with a right guaranteed by the the fourteenth amendment to the US constitution – is still being debated in the lower courts. Instead, the supreme court focused on the question of whether individual district court judges could block federal policies nationwide. The decision is both abstruse and monumental, experts say. It doesn't immediately change anything about how citizenship is granted in the US, and it profoundly shifts the ways in which the federal courts work. To help understand the implications of the ruling, the Guardian spoke with Efrén Olivares, vice-president of litigation and legal strategy at the National Immigration Law Center, a non-profit advocacy group. The interview has been edited for length and clarity. First, what exactly does the supreme court's ruling mean, today, for immigrants across the US who are expecting parents? The immediate impact is null. The supreme court explicitly said for the next 30 days, the executive order ending birthright citizenship will not go into effect. The right to citizenship by birth in the United States continues. Anyone born today, tomorrow, next week, two weeks from now in the US will be a citizen. We can anticipate that before those 30 days run out, there will be another ruling from one of the trial courts or district courts that will shed more light on this issue long-term. Does this mean that states and immigrant rights' groups that have sued over Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors will have to change how they are challenging the policy? There were three lawsuits filed on behalf of individuals and organizations against this executive order. All three were seeking to enjoin – which means stop – the enforcement of this executive order. Because it's an executive order of national scope, the rulings of the lower courts in these cases were national in scope, right? Then, the supreme court chimed in and said that is inappropriate for a court to block a policy nationwide, and that a court's ruling should only apply to the plaintiffs or parties right in front of them. So now, those challenging the order may move to seek a class certification, essentially to pursue a class-action lawsuit. Already, the immigration aid groups Casa and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project have filed an amended complaint seeking class-action relief in their challenge to Trump's birthright citizenship order. Class-action litigation has existed for years, and what that means is that now the party in front of the court is asking the court to rule not just on its own behalf, but also on behalf of everyone else similarly situated. The class-action suits are most commonly used in cases where people are seeking monetary relief – for example, in instances where there are defects in car manufacturing. In that type of case, anyone who bought this type of car between X and Y dates would be entitled to compensation. The supreme court ruling could now make class-action litigation much more common. How might the supreme court's ruling here impact other immigration cases? Because up to this point, federal judges' authority to freeze policies across the US – with so-called 'nationwide injunctions' – has served as a powerful check on executive power. It has been used to block policies instituted by both Democratic and Republican administrations. What is ironic is that the supreme court has been perfectly fine with nationwide injunctions in the past. For example, justices enjoined the Biden administration's cancellation of student loans. And they had no problem with a nationwide injunction in that case. This latest ruling on injunctions will affect any case that challenges a policy with national implications. We are particularly tracking the deployment of federal or military troops to do immigration enforcement, and continuation of unlawful, discriminatory enforcement of immigration laws on the basis of race. But this ruling will impact lots of cases. It can be immigration policy, it can be an environmental policy, it can be a voting rights policy – all of those things are regulated at the federal level. So now, if federal policy is challenged, unless it is challenged in a nationwide class-action lawsuit, a lower court's ruling would only apply in the state or states where that policy is challenged? Yes, we may have a patchwork of rulings that vary depending on what state you live in. One of the challenges to the birthright citizenship order, for example, was brought by individuals and organizations in Maryland, DC and Massachusetts. If that case is successful, but you live in Nebraska or Wisconsin or Texas, you may not have the same rights to citizenship as if you are in Maryland, DC or Massachusetts. That is totally inconsistent with our system of law for 250 years. In the supreme court's majority opinion, justice Amy Coney Barrett even alluded to the infeasibility of citizenship rules being different in different states. She summarizes the plaintiffs' argument that ''patchwork injunction' would prove unworkable, because it would require [the states] to track and verify the immigration status of the parents of every child, along with the birth state of every child for whom they provide certain federally funded benefits'. And she ultimately writes that courts can issue injunctions to ensure that a victorious plaintiff receives 'complete relief'. What exactly does that mean? I think they're trying to leave the door open for nationwide injunctions to be OK in certain contexts, and it's unclear what those contexts will be. If you have a national, nationwide class action, a nationwide injunction is the only way to give relief to everyone in the class. Still, in practice, I am worried that the language of the ruling lends itself to inconsistent applications based on the court's or the judge's political ideologies.
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Abstruse yet monumental: the scope and impact of the US supreme court's birthright citizenship ruling
The US supreme court opinion on Friday in a case challenging Donald Trump's attempt to unilaterally end the country's longstanding tradition of birthright citizenship doesn't actually rule on the constitutionality of the president's order. That question – of whether the president can do away with a right guaranteed by the the fourteenth amendment to the US constitution – is still being debated in the lower courts. Instead, the supreme court focused on the question of whether individual district court judges could block federal policies nationwide. The decision is both abstruse and monumental, experts say. It doesn't immediately change anything about how citizenship is granted in the US, and it profoundly shifts the ways in which the federal courts work. To help understand the implications of the ruling, the Guardian spoke with Efrén Olivares, vice-president of litigation and legal strategy at the National Immigration Law Center, a non-profit advocacy group. The interview has been edited for length and clarity. First, what exactly does the supreme court's ruling mean, today, for immigrants across the US who are expecting parents? The immediate impact is null. The supreme court explicitly said for the next 30 days, the executive order ending birthright citizenship will not go into effect. The right to citizenship by birth in the United States continues. Anyone born today, tomorrow, next week, two weeks from now in the US will be a citizen. We can anticipate that before those 30 days run out, there will be another ruling from one of the trial courts or district courts that will shed more light on this issue long-term. Does this mean that states and immigrant rights' groups that have sued over Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors will have to change how they are challenging the policy? There were three lawsuits filed on behalf of individuals and organizations against this executive order. All three were seeking to enjoin – which means stop – the enforcement of this executive order. Because it's an executive order of national scope, the rulings of the lower courts in these cases were national in scope, right? Then, the supreme court chimed in and said that is inappropriate for a court to block a policy nationwide, and that a court's ruling should only apply to the plaintiffs or parties right in front of them. So now, those challenging the order may move to seek a class certification, essentially to pursue a class-action lawsuit. Already, the immigration aid groups Casa and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project have filed an amended complaint seeking class-action relief in their challenge to Trump's birthright citizenship order. Class-action litigation has existed for years, and what that means is that now the party in front of the court is asking the court to rule not just on its own behalf, but also on behalf of everyone else similarly situated. The class-action suits are most commonly used in cases where people are seeking monetary relief – for example, in instances where there are defects in car manufacturing. In that type of case, anyone who bought this type of car between X and Y dates would be entitled to compensation. The supreme court ruling could now make class-action litigation much more common. How might the supreme court's ruling here impact other immigration cases? Because up to this point, federal judges' authority to freeze policies across the US – with so-called 'nationwide injunctions' – has served as a powerful check on executive power. It has been used to block policies instituted by both Democratic and Republican administrations. What is ironic is that the supreme court has been perfectly fine with nationwide injunctions in the past. For example, justices enjoined the Biden administration's cancellation of student loans. And they had no problem with a nationwide injunction in that case. This latest ruling on injunctions will affect any case that challenges a policy with national implications. We are particularly tracking the deployment of federal or military troops to do immigration enforcement, and continuation of unlawful, discriminatory enforcement of immigration laws on the basis of race. But this ruling will impact lots of cases. It can be immigration policy, it can be an environmental policy, it can be a voting rights policy – all of those things are regulated at the federal level. So now, if federal policy is challenged, unless it is challenged in a nationwide class-action lawsuit, a lower court's ruling would only apply in the state or states where that policy is challenged? Yes, we may have a patchwork of rulings that vary depending on what state you live in. One of the challenges to the birthright citizenship order, for example, was brought by individuals and organizations in Maryland, DC and Massachusetts. If that case is successful, but you live in Nebraska or Wisconsin or Texas, you may not have the same rights to citizenship as if you are in Maryland, DC or Massachusetts. That is totally inconsistent with our system of law for 250 years. In the supreme court's majority opinion, justice Amy Coney Barrett even alluded to the infeasibility of citizenship rules being different in different states. She summarizes the plaintiffs' argument that ''patchwork injunction' would prove unworkable, because it would require [the states] to track and verify the immigration status of the parents of every child, along with the birth state of every child for whom they provide certain federally funded benefits'. And she ultimately writes that courts can issue injunctions to ensure that a victorious plaintiff receives 'complete relief'. What exactly does that mean? I think they're trying to leave the door open for nationwide injunctions to be OK in certain contexts, and it's unclear what those contexts will be. If you have a national, nationwide class action, a nationwide injunction is the only way to give relief to everyone in the class. Still, in practice, I am worried that the language of the ruling lends itself to inconsistent applications based on the court's or the judge's political ideologies.
