Attorney-General Slams GBA Over ‘Selective Silence’ on Chief Justice’s Removal

The Minister for Justice and Attorney-General Dr. Dominic Ayine has taken a swipe at the Ghana Bar Association (GBA), accusing the professional body of selective commentary on constitutional matters, particularly the recent removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.

Speaking at the opening of the Annual General Conference of the GBA on Monday, September 15, 2025, Dr. Ayine urged the Association to rise above partisanship and consistently defend the rule of law.

“In 2015, an Article 146 petition was filed against CHRAJ boss Lauretta Lamptey, but the Bar remained silent. Again, in 2017, when petitions were brought against then-EC Chair Charlotte Osei and her deputies, the Bar did not intervene,” he said. “Yet, in the case of Chief Justice Torkornoo, the Bar suddenly found its voice. The honest question we must ask ourselves is—what changed?”

He noted that all three cases involved women heading constitutionally independent bodies critical to democracy, stressing that the GBA’s credibility lies in being impartial and consistent in its advocacy.

Chief Justice Torkornoo was formally removed from office by President John Dramani Mahama on September 1, 2025, after a five-member Article 146 Committee chaired by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang recommended her dismissal on grounds of stated misbehaviour.

Other members of the committee included former Auditor-General Daniel Yaw Domelevo, Major Flora Bazaanura Dalugo of the Ghana Armed Forces, and Professor James Sefah Dzisah of the University of Ghana.

The inquiry followed three separate petitions and was conducted in-camera, in line with constitutional provisions.

Justice Torkornoo had earlier been suspended on April 22, 2025, after a prima facie case was established.

Her removal marks the first time in Ghana’s Fourth Republic that a sitting Chief Justice has been ousted under Article 146 procedures.

Dr. Ayine’s remarks have reignited debate over the role of the Bar in defending judicial independence, with observers questioning whether the Association has been consistent in its advocacy across different administrations.