The Chief Justice as far back as the 9th day of June, 2025 filed an application to quash the hearings conducted by the Justice Pwamang committee which is set up to determine the petitions against the learned Chief Justice for her removal and recommend same or otherwise to the President.

In the Judicial Review application of the Chief Justice, she personally deposes to the affidavit attached to the motion paper seeking orders of certiorari against the Justice Pwamang Committee and deposes per her motion, the wrongful conduct of proceedings by the Justice Pwamang Committee in accordance with rules of litigation in Court using C.I 47 rather than C.I 65 which provides for the rules of procedure for Commissions of Inquiry whose definition under article 295 of the 1992 Constitution includes a committee of inquiry like the Justice Pwamang Commitee.

What are the specific charges against me?

Her Ladyship the Chief Justice deposes in her application, that she does not have a copy of the prima facie determination made by the President against her and does not know specifically which charge she is to defend at the hearings of the committee.

She tells the Court through her affidavit, that she has officially requested copies of the petitions relied on by the committee in the performance of its work in line with dictates of C.I 47 as used by the Committee in proceedings before it so that the committee cannot purport to make any findings on an allegation which is not contained in the petitions before the committee. Per Her Ladyship's affidavit, the supply of the copies shall also offer her the opportunity to adequately offer a response to the allegation contained in the copies of the petitions served on her by the Committee.

She further deposes, with evidence attached, the request for copies of the petitions which the committee has disregarded.

Case Management Conference without me

Justice Torkornoo deposes in her 44-paragraphed affidavit that on the 15th day of May, 2025, the Justice Pwamang Committee conducted Case management for hearings without her Lawyers who had attended upon invitation of the Committee and was physically present before them.

According to the Affidavit, the Committee in the face of the attendance of her Lawyers before them elected not to recognise them because of her personal absence. Despite the failure to recognise him, the Committee still went ahead to plan hearings without the involvement of her lawyers.

Haphazard Hearings