Former Attorney General and seasoned legal practitioner Ayikoi Otoo has strongly rejected the grounds cited for the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, describing the decision as unjustified and lacking in substance.
Speaking on Joy News following President John Mahama’s announcement of the Chief Justice’s dismissal on grounds of stated misbehaviour, Mr. Otoo argued that the accusations surrounding her travel entitlements were baseless and procedurally flawed.
“When these entitlements come, it is not for you to determine anything,” he said. “You are just to determine whether you want to travel. So when you tell them that you intend to take your vacation in Arusha, Tanzania, the officers work on your entitlement and bring it to you. You are not involved.”
According to Mr. Otoo, the former Chief Justice merely acted within her rights under the judiciary’s established travel policy. He noted that such procedures are routine for high-level officials and stressed that there was no act of impropriety on her part.
“So what wrong did the Chief Justice commit for asking to go on a usual vacation as part of the conditions of service?” he queried. “She indicated she was going to Arusha, and the responsible officers — the judicial secretary, head of finance, and others — processed her entitlements accordingly.”
Mr. Otoo criticised the committee that recommended her removal, accusing it of ignoring the judiciary’s travel policy, which had been tendered as evidence.
“There is a travel policy for the judiciary — they never referred to it,” he said. “She is entitled to travel with a person of her own choice. Other Chief Justices before her, who didn’t have spouses, also travelled with persons of their choice. That was the norm.”
He further questioned whether the matter should have been considered misconduct at all.
“Was she the one who asked to be given travel expenses? Is she not entitled to them? And if something was wrongly given, that’s what audits are for,” he argued. “Auditors can recommend a surcharge if they detect a wrongful payment. But is that a ground for removal?”
Expressing surprise at the composition and conclusions of the committee, Mr. Otoo singled out Daniel Domelovo, a former Auditor-General and member of the panel, questioning how he could have endorsed such a recommendation after hearing the facts.
“I’m surprised Domelovo was on it. He sat through it. He heard us,” he said.
