In-camera rule doesn’t silence CJ’s right to speak on ‘mistreatment’ – Abban

Lawyer and former New Patriotic Party (NPP) MP for Gomoa West, Alexander Kojo Abban has defended suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo’s decision to speak publicly about her ongoing removal process.

He argues that her human rights concerns should not be suppressed under the guise of confidentiality.

Speaking in an interview, Abban pushed back against criticisms that the Chief Justice violated legal protocol by addressing aspects of the case in public.

“Now we say things must be done in-camera, it is just the elucidation of evidence, which must be done in-camera,” he stated.

“I don’t think she came to adduce the evidence in the media. Beyond the evidence, if there are other things she is suffering, are you saying that she cannot mention it?”

The lawyer insisted that Chief Justice Torkornoo’s public comments were within bounds and focused on issues beyond the core proceedings, particularly those relating to her rights and dignity as a citizen in a democratic state.

Addressing the structure of the inquiry, Mr. Abban raised questions about how prima facie determinations were made.

“So, we should draw a thin line between in-camera proceedings and external issues that border on her human rights. If she cannot talk about it, then who else?”

“If we have five different petitions and within each petition we have specific allegations… are we saying that prima facie cases were made in all 15 allegations? Probably not,” he noted.

He added that the Chief Justice is only requesting fair treatment.

Abban’s comments stand in contrast to those of other legal analysts such as Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo, who maintain that the Chief Justice’s decision to speak publicly constitutes a breach of the in-camera requirement and is unconstitutional.

“Are we saying the Chief Justice is asking for too much? She is asking for what her right as a human being depicts that a democracy should do”, the former MP stated.