A private legal practitioner, Yaw Anokye Frimpong, has criticised suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Esaaba Torkornoo over a recent press conference in which she made several allegations and expressed dissatisfaction with the ongoing process seeking her removal from office.

Frimpong described the action by the suspended Supreme Court judge as a breach of Article 146 of the Constitution, which mandates that parties involved in such proceedings refrain from making public comments, as the process is conducted in camera.

Speaking in an interview on Frontline on Rainbow Radio 87.5 FM, he asserted that someone who has spent her entire legal career rising to such a high office should not be the one to disregard established rules and engage the media in this manner.

He added that another troubling aspect of the press conference was her attempt to accuse members of the investigative committee of bias and human rights violations, despite their inability to respond or defend themselves publicly.

Frimpong further stated that Madam Torkornoo’s decision to comment on the merits and details of the petitions against her was most unfortunate and irresponsible.

According to him, her request to waive her rights and have the proceedings heard publicly was also regrettable, as it constitutes a violation of the Constitution.

“It was irresponsible for her to hold a press conference and drag the committee through the mud in the way she did. She worked as an astute lawyer before taking the bench, and she is well aware that Article 146 clearly outlines how such proceedings should be conducted. Even divorce cases are held in camera—how much more a case involving the Chief Justice and her potential removal from office? To preserve the sanctity and dignity of the office, the proceedings are held in secret. The office of Chief Justice is sacred and should not be treated in this manner.

I strongly believe she is seeking public sympathy through her actions, which are both wrong and reckless. She erred and should not repeat this mistake.”

He also accused her of selectively addressing parts of the petition to defend herself, rather than responding to all the allegations presented.

“You don’t just pick one or two issues and ignore the rest. If there are 30 or 50 allegations, even one proven charge can lead to your removal,” he said.

The lawyer added that it would have preserved some of her dignity had she chosen to resign early, thereby protecting her entitlements and legacy.

He concluded that it was wrong for her to make prejudicial comments about a matter that is still under investigation. While she may have doubts and reservations, as a responsible citizen, she should have exercised restraint and waited for the process to be completed before seeking redress through the appropriate channels.