Former Attorney General Godfred Dame has asserted that the Supreme Court’s narrow 3-2 decision against his application for an injunction in the case involving Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo’s suspension highlights the substantive legal merit of his arguments, despite the court ruling against him.
The tightly split decision followed arguments from lawyers representing Old Tafo MP Vincent Assafuah, who called for proceedings to be paused until key constitutional concerns — particularly those involving judicial independence and due process — were addressed.
Although the court majority found the injunction request unconvincing, Dame emphasized the importance of the dissenting opinions. Speaking to JoyNews after the ruling, he expressed discomfort with Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie presiding over a matter directly connected to the suspended Chief Justice.
“This is an unusual development in our judicial history. The acting Chief Justice stands to benefit from these proceedings,” Dame noted. “It’s quite intriguing that he sat on a case in which he has such a central role.”
He further underscored the implications of the split ruling: “A 3-2 decision reflects the legitimacy of our concerns. We’ll await the full judgment to decide our next course of action.”
This ruling came after a previous unanimous rejection of Dame’s challenge to Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s involvement in the case.
Dame had contended that it was improper for the acting Chief Justice to both form the panel and preside over a case with such direct institutional implications, cautioning that this could erode public trust in the judiciary’s impartiality.
The five-judge panel includes Justices Baffoe-Bonnie, Henrietta Mensa Bonsu, Yonny Kulendi, Amadu Tanko, and Ernest Gaewu. With the injunction bid denied, the court will now move forward to address the deeper constitutional issues surrounding Justice Torkornoo’s suspension.
