Private legal practitioner Thaddeus Sory has revealed that Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin played a significant role in his client’s decision to petition for the removal of former Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Sackey Torkonoo. He explained that one of the major counts in the petition directly cited the Minority Leader and actions that formed the foundation of the case.
According to Mr. Sory, the Effutu MP achieved an unprecedented feat when he secured a full Supreme Court panel presided over by Justice Torkonoo to grant orders that, in his view, no court within a common-law system would issue under the scope of the application filed.
He argued that this conduct created serious concerns not only for the former Chief Justice but also for Justice Gabriel Pwamang, who chaired the committee that recommended her removal.
Mr. Sory said the treatment of Justice Pwamang contributed to the larger issues surrounding the case, adding that aspects of the senior justice’s report raised additional concerns.
He noted that during the proceedings, several individuals familiar with both Afenyo-Markin and Justice Torkonoo approached him, questioning why he did not consider their close ties. He said he was told the two came from the same place and that during the funeral of Justice Torkonoo’s father, the Minority Leader hosted her visitors.
The lawyer stated that had the proceedings continued, he would have raised an objection directly challenging the involvement of the former Chief Justice, arguing that escalating tensions within the matter stemmed from the fact that someone close to her—Afenyo-Markin—was the plaintiff.
Mr. Sory further claimed that new information suggests certain services within the Judicial Service are linked commercially to the Minority Leader, who he alleges profits substantially from them. He believes this is why Afenyo-Markin is portraying the nomination process of the current Chief Justice, Baffoe Bonnie, as a national crisis, even though it does not reflect any official minority caucus position.
He insisted that the Minority Leader crafted this narrative to persuade his colleagues to adopt a unified stance, adding that the facts point to a personal interest in the Chief Justice’s appointment. “The facts show you have an interest in her being there,” he stressed.
Beyond the accusations, Mr. Sory also questioned the format of the parliamentary approval process for judicial nominees. He argued that the Constitution requires “prior approval,” not necessarily a full vetting session. He suggested that Parliament should instead review a nominee’s CV and background, resorting to vetting only when clarification is needed, and using acclamation for straightforward confirmations.
He added that if an appointee fails to perform, the appointing authority retains the power to remove them. The current system, he said, unnecessarily prolongs the process and forces the public to witness what he described as a procedure where “95% of it is a joke.”
