All 16 reliefs sought by suspended CJ in suit against her removal

Here is the list of all 16 reliefs sought by suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo in her suit filed at the Supreme Court on May 21, 2025, challenging her removal:

1. Right to a Public Hearing in Removal Proceedings

• A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 17(1) and (2), 19(13) and (14), 146(7) and (8), 281(1) and 295(1) of the Constitution, a Chief Justice has the right to a public hearing in proceedings before a committee appointed by the President to inquire into a petition presented for the removal of the Chief Justice.

2. Grounds for Excluding Fair Hearing Must Align with Constitutional Limits

• A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 17(1) and (2), 19(13) and (14), 23, 146(7) and (8), 281 (1) and 295(1) of the Constitution, the right of a Chief Justice to a public hearing and all the incidents of a fair hearing may only be excluded in the interest of public morality, public safety, or public order.

3. Chief Justice Can Waive In Camera Proceedings

• A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 17(1) and (2), 19(13) and (14), 23, 146(7) and (8), 281 (1) and 295(1) of the Constitution, a Chief Justice who is called upon to participate in a hearing conducted by a committee constituted under article 146(6) to inquire into the merits of a petition seeking the removal from office of the Chief Justice can waive the privilege of “in camera proceedings”.

4. Prima Facie Determination is a Quasi-Judicial Process

• A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 19(13), 23, 146(1), (2), (4) and (6) and 296 of the Constitution, a determination of a prima facie case in respect of a petition for the removal of a Chief Justice or a Justice of the Superior Court of Judicature is a quasi-judicial process requiring a judicious evaluation, culminating in a reasoned decision.

5. The April 22, 2025 Prima Facie Finding is Invalid

• A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 19(13), 23, 146(1), (2), (4) and (6) and 296 of the Constitution, the purported prima facie finding in respect of three petitions presented for the removal of the Chief Justice and served on the Plaintiff by a letter dated 22nd April, 2025, does not amount to a proper determination of a prima facie case and is therefore null, void and of no effect.

6. President’s Finding Violates Right to Fair Trial

• A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 19(13), 23, 146(1), (2), (4) and (6) and 296 of the Constitution, the purported finding by the President that a prima facie case has been made against the Plaintiff and served on the President by a letter dated 22nd April, 2025, was arbitrary, capricious, in violation of the right of the Plaintiff to a fair trial, and therefore unconstitutional, void and of no effect.

7. Suspension and Prima Facie Finding Undermine Judicial Independence

• A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 146(1), (2), (4), 125(3) and (4), 127(1) and (2) and 296 of the Constitution, the purported determination by the President that a prima facie case has been established against the Plaintiff as conveyed in the letter dated 22nd April 2025, together with the warrant of suspension of the Plaintiff, constitute an unjustified attempt to remove the Plaintiff as Head of Ghana’s Judiciary and thus, an undue infringement on the independence of the Judiciary.

8. Failure to Serve Prima Facie Finding Violates Due Process

• A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of article 146(6) and (7) of the Constitution, the failure to serve the Plaintiff with a judicious determination of a prima facie case before appointing a committee to purportedly inquire into the petitions for the removal of the Plaintiff as Chief Justice constitutes a violation of the Plaintiffs right to substantive administrative justice and fair hearing, rendering the entire proceedings initiated null and void.

9. Set Aside the Suspension Warrant

• An order setting aside the warrant for suspension issued by the President dated 22nd April, 2025 to suspend the Plaintiff as Chief Justice of the Republic.

10. Justice Pwamang Unqualified Due to Conflict of Interest

• A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 23, 146(6) and (7) and 296(a) and (b) of the Constitution, the 2nd defendant, Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, is not qualified to be a chairman or member of the committee set up by the President to inquire into the petitions against the Plaintiff on account of having adjudicated and given various rulings in favour of one of the petitioners, Daniel Ofori in actions filed in the Supreme Court.

11. Prohibit Justice Pwamang from Participating

• An order prohibiting the 2nd defendant, Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, from presiding as Chairman of the committee or participating in the proceedings of the committee set up to inquire into the petitions against the Plaintiff.

12. Justice Adibu-Asiedu’s Appointment Compromises Judicial Independence

• A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 23, 127(1) and (2), 146(6) and (7) and 296(a) and (b) of the Constitution, the appointment of the 3rd defendant, Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, as a member of the committee set up by the President to inquire into the petitions against the Plaintiff, at a time when he had already sat as a member of a panel of the Supreme Court constituted under article 128(2) of the Constitution to hear an application for interlocutory injunction filed by a Ghanaian citizen challenging the “article 146 proceedings” initiated against the Plaintiff, violates the independence of the Judiciary.

13. Prohibit Justice Adibu-Asiedu from Participating

• An order prohibiting the 3rd defendant, Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, from sitting as a member of or participating in the proceedings of the committee set up to inquire into the petitions against the Plaintiff.

14. Remaining Committee Members Not Qualified

• A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 146(1), (2), (4), 23 and 296 of the Constitution and sections 1, 2, and 4 of the Oaths Act, 1972, the 4th, 5th and 6th defendants are not qualified to undertake the functions entrusted on them as members of the committee set up by the President to inquire into the petitions against the Plaintiff.

15. Restrain Committee from Proceeding

• An order restraining the committee set up by the President to inquire into the three petitions against the Chief Justice composed of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th , 5th and 6th defendants from proceeding to carry out the terms of reference of the committee set up under article 146(6) as laid out in the letter dated 22nd April, 2025.

16. Any Other Relief

• Any other order(s) as to this Honourable Court may seem meet.