Former Attorney General Ayikoi Otoo has rejected the basis for the removal of former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, arguing that there is no evidence of wrongdoing to justify her dismissal.
Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Monday, September 1, following President John Mahama’s announcement of her removal on grounds of stated misbehaviour, Mr. Otoo questioned the legitimacy of the decision.
According to him, the processes regarding official entitlements are not determined by the officeholder but by administrative officers.
“When these entitlements come, it is not for you to calculate or demand. You only indicate your travel plans. For example, if you say you intend to take your vacation in Arusha, Tanzania, the officers responsible will process your entitlements and make them available to you. This is not unusual. As Attorney General and later as an ambassador, I experienced the same. You are not involved in the calculations,” he explained.
Mr. Otoo emphasized that the former Chief Justice acted within her rights.
“It is for the officers to apply the policy. Are you entitled to per diem? Yes. If you travel with someone, is that person also entitled? Yes. So they process it and hand it over. What exactly was the wrongdoing in this case? She asked to take her usual vacation, as part of her conditions of service, and indicated her destination. The Judicial Secretary, the Head of Finance, and all others who handle travel arrangements processed it and gave her what was due,” he argued.
He further accused the committee of disregarding the judiciary’s established travel policy.
“There is a travel policy for the judiciary, yet the committee ignored it despite the fact that we presented it. That policy clearly allows the Chief Justice to travel with a person of her choice, not only a spouse. Indeed, there have been Chief Justices without spouses who exercised that option. So why was this treated differently?” he asked.
Mr. Otoo maintained that framing the issue as misconduct was flawed.
“Did she demand special treatment or ask for unauthorized funds? No. She received entitlements she was due. And if, by chance, the amounts were wrongly issued, that is precisely why we have auditors to point it out and recommend a surcharge. But is that the same as misconduct warranting removal?” he questioned.
Expressing his disappointment, he singled out the role of Daniel Domelevo, a member of the committee.
“I am surprised Domelevo endorsed this. He sat through the hearings. He heard our presentations. Yet, in the face of all the evidence, he concluded that the Chief Justice misappropriated funds. Which funds, exactly?” Mr. Otoo asked.
