Supreme Court Judges In Trouble For Maligning A Colleague Judge

Five Supreme Court Justices have found themselves in hot waters for maligning a colleague judge Justice Ankamah for striking a case based on the evidence at hand.


Justice Jones Victor Dotse's last sitting at the bench before his retirement was on a case that can be referred to as 'the Republic vrs High Court exparte Dorgadzi" and his subsequent valedictory ruling on same has been criticized by sections of the public as "a slur on Supreme Court".

A panel of five Supreme Court justices chaired by Justice Jones Victor Dotse (now retired) in a detailed ruling on June 12, 2023, unanimously prohibited Justice Emmanuel Ankamah from further hearing of the case of the Estate of Rev. Emmanuel Dorgadzi at the Tema High Court. The Justices were His Lordship Justice Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi, Justice Avril Lovelace Johnson, Justice Prof Henrietta Joy Abena Nyarko Mensa-Bonsu, Justice Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu, Justice Jones Victor Mawulorm Dotse.

Justice Dotse's panel described the conduct of the trial judge, Justice Emmanuel Ankamah as "shameful" and subsequently urged the Chief Justice to cause investigations into the apparent devise by the interested parties after quashing his orders.



Per the report on Daily Graphic page 16, compiled by Emmanuel Ebo Hawkson on Friday, November 10th, 2023; The Judicial Council has absolved a Justice of the Court of Appeal, Justice Emmanuel Ankamah, from any wrongdoing in a case involving the estate of a deceased pastor. After investigations, the Judicial Council found no case of impropriety against Justice Ankamah, and further came to the conclusion that the Justice of the Court of Appeal acted within the confines of the law and in the rightful exercise of his discretion as a judge.



Why the investigations?

On June 6 this year, the Supreme Court referred Justice Ankamah-who presided over the estate dispute in 2022 at the Tema High Court- and the then Registrar of the High Court, Sebastian Agbo, to the Chief Justice for investigations and possible sanctions.

A five-member panel of the apex court made the referral after it quashed a decision by Justice Ankamah, which struck out a caveat challenging the letters of administration for the sharing of the properties in the estate of the late Rev.

Emmanuel Dorgbadzi. The Supreme Court, in the referral, accused Justice Ankamah and the then- Registrar of acting in a manner that brought the administration of justice into disrepute, describing their actions as a "shameful specie of conduct".

Delivering his valedictory judgment, the venerable Justice Jones Dotse held that Justice Ankamah failed to give the caveators a hearing before striking out the caveat, and, therefore, the court breached the rules of natural justice.

It was also the considered view of the court that the evidence on record showed that the case was not listed for hearing, but strangely it was heard on the blind side of thecaveators a hearing before striking out the caveat, and, therefore, the court breached the rules of natural justice.

It was also the considered view of the court that the evidence on record showed that the case was not listed for hearing, but strangely it was heard on the blind side of the caveators, with the presiding judge striking out the said caveat for want of prosecution and granting the letters of administration to the interested parties.

According to Justice Dotse, the irregular manner in which the case was determined pointed to the fact that the presiding judge "appeared to be biased against the applicants".

However, a letter signed by the Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, and sighted by the Daily Graphic, said after investigations, a committee, constituted by the Judicial Council, established no wrongdoing against Justice Ankamah.

The Chief Justice revealed in the letter, dated October 31, 2023, that the report of the committee absolving Justice Ankamah from any wrongdoing was adopted by the Judicial Council at its meeting held on October 4 this year.

The letter stated that the committee came to the conclusion that the striking out of the caveat by Justice Ankamah was in "exercise of discretion".

"Please be informed that the committee determined that the decision you took to strike out the case for want of prosecution could be attributed to the exercise of discretion.

"The committee, therefore, did not establish impropriety or misconduct that could trigger an enquiry under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana," the Chief Justice said in the letter.