Political activist Oliver Barker-Vormawor has objected to the inclusion of Chief Justice (CJ) Gertrude Torkornoo on the panel in a case in which he has been sued by the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission, Jean Mensa, and her two deputies.

Jean Mensa, and her two deputies, per the action, named Oliver Barker-Vormawor, the Chief Justice, and the Attorney General as defendants over a petition to the President for their removal on "stated misbehaviour and incompetence."

When the case was called on Wednesday, June 5, before a seven-member panel chaired by Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, lawyers for the EC commissioners said they had a motion to have the matter discontinued.

However, the CJ, named as the 2nd Defendant and part of the panel, drew the parties' attention to the fact that the case was previously adjourned to reconstitute the panel since she was a party.

Before deciding to adjourn the matter for the panel to be reconstituted, she inquired from the parties if they had any objection to her being a member of the panel, despite the plaintiffs' indication that they were withdrawing the action.

Justin Amenuvor, counsel for the EC Commissioners, said they do not have any objections.

Barker-Vormawor, the first defendant, whom Justice Amadu Omoro Tanko had jokingly said supports the same club—Manchester United—as the CJ said, "for the sake of posterity," objects to the CJ's inclusion on the panel.

EIB Network's Legal Affairs Correspondent, Murtala Inusah, who was in court, reported that the CJ also included Justices Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Omoro Amadu Tanko, Prof. Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Barbara Ackah-Yensu, Samuel Asiedu, and Ernest Gaewu.

The case has since been adjourned sine die for the panel to be reconstituted.

Background:

In January 2022, Jean Mensa, and her two deputies dragged Oliver Barker-Vormawor, the Chief Justice, and the Attorney General to the Supreme Court over a petition to the President for "stated misbehaviour and incompetence."

In a writ to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court filed on January 26, 2022, the Plaintiffs were asking for five reliefs, including "a declaration that the airing of the contents of the Petition by the 1st Defendant to the media (traditional and social) has subjected the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Plaintiffs to public ridicule, hatred, opium, and opprobrium and equally exposed them to unfair prejudice."

They are also seeking "an order of perpetual injunction directed against the 2nd Defendant (Chief Justice) from determining, dealing, or having anything to do, in any manner whatsoever and/or howsoever, with any issues arising out of the contents of the Petitioners' Petition or at all."

They also seek "orders and/or directions as this honourable court may deem fit to give effect or enable effect to be given to the orders of this court."