The Supreme Court of Ghana has, by a narrow 3:2 majority decision, dismissed an injunction application seeking to restrain President John Dramani Mahama from proceeding with the constitutional process to remove Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo from office.

The legal challenge, filed by Vincent Ekow Assifuah, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Member of Parliament for Old Tafo in the Ashanti Region, sought to halt the removal process following the President's establishment of a prima facie case against the Chief Justice, in consultation with the Council of State.

Reacting to the development, private legal practitioner Mintah Larbi described the injunction application as “mischievous” and lacking merit.

Speaking in an interview on Accra 100.5 FM’s evening news on Tuesday, May 6, 2025, Mr. Larbi argued that the move was designed merely to delay proceedings and waste the apex court’s time.

“The application had no good intent,” he said, accusing the applicants of seeking to undermine a legitimate constitutional process.

The Supreme Court’s decision marks a critical turning point in what has become a politically charged legal standoff.

In addition to the dismissal of the injunction, the court also unanimously rejected a preliminary objection raised by former Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame.

Mr. Dame had questioned the participation of Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie in the panel, citing a possible conflict of interest.

However, all five justices dismissed the objection, allowing Baffoe-Bonnie to remain on the case.

The final 3:2 ruling saw Acting Chief Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, Justice Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, and Justice Amadu Tanko forming the majority that dismissed the application. Justices Yonni Kulendi and Ernest Gaewu dissented, backing the applicants' attempt to block the President from proceeding.

With the injunction now dismissed, President Mahama is legally cleared to continue with the removal process, despite ongoing legal and political tensions surrounding the matter.

This decision has added a new layer of complexity to the ongoing debate over judicial independence and executive oversight, with legal observers watching closely as the process unfolds,