Former Director of the Ghana School of Law, Kwaku Ansa-Asare, has shared his perspective on the recent petitions seeking the removal of the Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkonoo. Speaking on Adom FM’s Dwaso Nsem, Ansa-Asare stated that if he were in the Chief Justice's position, he would not have formally requested copies of the petitions. He believes her request demonstrates a deep understanding of the law and due process.

Ansa-Asare explained that while the Chief Justice is within her rights to seek the documents, he personally would have handled the situation differently. “If I were the Chief Justice, I wouldn’t have even asked for the copies. But the fact that she has requested them shows that she knows the law and understands that she is entitled to them,” he stated.

He elaborated on the legal basis for his opinion, noting that the law mandates that a Chief Justice be informed of any petition filed against them. “The law is clear. If a petition is sent against the Chief Justice, she must know what it says. That’s why she wrote to the president requesting her copies.”

However, Ansa-Asare suggested an alternative approach, stating, “She should have just continued with her work. The Council of State will ask if she has been given copies, and if not, they will direct the president to provide them.” He emphasized the importance of allowing the Chief Justice an opportunity to respond to the allegations, arguing that a decision made without her input would be unjust. “A petition without the response of the person it is against is incomplete. How do you decide without hearing from the other side?” he questioned.

Chief Justice Torkonoo's formal request for the petitions was made to President John Mahama on March 27. In her letter, she stated, “I am by this letter humbly and respectfully asking His Excellency the President and eminent members of the Council of State to forward the petitions against me and allow me at least seven days after receipt to provide my response, which can then form part of the material for the consultations anticipated under Article 146(6), before the possible setting up of a Committee of Inquiry under Article 146(7).”

In other news, Adum traders reportedly hooted at the interior minister and rejected 1,500 bags of rice and boxes of cooking oil.