Supreme Court’s 3-2 Verdict on CJ Suspension: Godfred Dame Declares Partial Victory and Defends Legal Stand
Narrow Supreme Court Ruling Sparks Debate on Justice and Legal Principles
In a highly anticipated and tightly contested ruling, the Supreme Court of Ghana delivered a narrow 3-2 judgment rejecting an injunction application that sought to halt the ongoing proceedings against the Chief Justice, Her Ladyship Gertrude Torkornoo. The case, filed by legal representatives of Vincent Ekow Assafuah, the Member of Parliament for Old Tafo, aimed to address pressing constitutional issues before the disciplinary action against the Chief Justice could continue.
Although the injunction was not granted, the closeness of the ruling has led to considerable public and legal debate. One of the strongest voices in the aftermath is former Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame, who served as the lawyer representing the applicant. According to Dame, the outcome—despite being a technical loss—actually highlights the depth and credibility of the arguments made in court.
Godfred Dame: “The Split Decision Proves Our Case Had Merit”
Following the ruling, Mr. Dame commented on the implications of the 3-2 split among the panel of Supreme Court Justices. He emphasized that such a narrow decision cannot be dismissed as a simple loss.
The 3-2 narrowness of the decision itself indicates clearly that the application no doubt had merit, he stated.
Mr. Dame pointed to the fact that two of the five Justices—Justice Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu and Justice Ernest Yao Gaewu—agreed with the application and saw valid reasons to support the injunction request. This, he argued, is strong evidence that their legal position raised serious constitutional questions worthy of consideration.
Key Constitutional Issues Raised
The injunction application focused on ensuring that constitutional questions about the independence of the judiciary and the proper procedures for investigating a sitting Chief Justice were resolved before any disciplinary proceedings could advance. According to Dame, allowing such proceedings without clarity on these matters risks undermining public confidence in the judicial system.
He and his legal team argued that if the judiciary is perceived as being subject to external political pressure or internal bias, it could damage the integrity of legal institutions and erode trust in the rule of law.
Controversy Over Panel Leadership
A major point of contention during the proceedings was the composition of the Supreme Court panel itself. Mr. Dame raised concerns about the involvement of Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, who is currently serving as Acting Chief Justice following Torkornoo’s suspension. Dame contended that it was inappropriate for Baffoe-Bonnie to both empanel the case and serve as the presiding Justice, especially since the matter directly involves his suspended predecessor.
However, the panel unanimously dismissed Dame’s objection, ruling that there was no conflict of interest and that Baffoe-Bonnie could continue to chair the proceedings.
Awaiting the Court's Full Reasoning
While the injunction was ultimately denied, the full reasoning behind the Court’s decision has yet to be released. The Supreme Court is expected to deliver a detailed written judgment on May 21, 2025. Until then, Mr. Dame and his legal team are withholding further comments on the next steps they plan to take.
“We will study the written judgment thoroughly and then decide on the appropriate course of action,” he remarked.
Why This Case Matters
This case is more than just a legal technicality—it’s about the foundational principles of judicial accountability, transparency, and constitutional governance in Ghana. With the public watching closely, the final outcome may have lasting implications for how judicial officers are held accountable, as well as the independence of one of the nation’s most important institutions.
Conclusion
While the Supreme Court may have dismissed the injunction in a 3-2 decision, the case has drawn nationwide attention and sparked critical conversations about constitutional law and the functioning of Ghana’s judiciary. With significant figures like Godfred Dame publicly defending the legal merit of the case, this story is far from over.
Stay tuned for the Supreme Court’s full explanation on May 21—what it reveals could shape the future of judicial oversight in Ghana.
