Accusations of Fake Evidence in Judicial Proceedings
Former Auditor-General Daniel Yao Domevelo, who was a member of the committee that handled petitions against former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, has accused former Attorney-General Nii Ayikoi Otoo of presenting fake documents as evidence during the in-camera proceedings. Mr. Domelevo expressed his surprise at Mr. Otoo’s actions, stating that he found it interesting that Mr. Otoo would present such documents to the committee to defend Madam Torkornoo.
Speaking on the KSM show, Mr. Domelevo said, “Let us come to Mr. Ayikoi Otoo’s account of me; I find it very interesting. He said he has provided all the evidence to Mr. Domelevo, a former Auditor-General, and I sat there and didn’t take it. I want to put it on record that he provided us with evidence that was fake. It will interest you to know that it is the junior of the Chief Justice, the Judicial Secretary, who appointed the Chief Justice; that letter that he produced was signed by the Judicial Secretary appointing her as Chief Justice.”
The five-member committee, chaired by Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang of the Supreme Court, was formed by the President in accordance with Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution, following consultations with the Council of State. The decision was made after determining a prima facie case against the Chief Justice.
It is recalled that Ayikoi Otoo accused the committee that recommended the removal of the Chief Justice of disregarding critical evidence, including the judiciary’s official travel policy. In an interview on Joy FM on Monday, September 1, 2025, Nii Ayikoi Otoo insisted that Justice Torkornoo’s request to embark on vacation was fully compliant with established entitlements and procedures.
“When these entitlements come, it is not for you to determine anything. You only decide whether you want to travel. Once you indicate, the officers work out your entitlements and bring them to you. You are not personally involved,” he explained, emphasizing that the Chief Justice did not allocate allowances herself.
According to him, the judiciary’s travel policy, submitted in evidence during the hearings, clearly allows a Chief Justice to travel with a companion of their choice, particularly in situations where there is no spouse. He noted that previous Chief Justices had also exercised this option.
“The travel policy was submitted, but the committee never referred to it. She was entitled to travel with one person of her choice, and she did so,” he said.
Mr Otoo dismissed claims of financial impropriety, arguing that any dispute over allowances should have been handled through an audit process rather than being used as grounds for removal.
“Assuming it was wrongly given, is that not why you have auditors? They should surcharge you if you took something unlawfully. Is that a ground for removal?” he asked, stressing that the Judicial Secretary, not the Chief Justice, is the designated spending officer.
Expressing disbelief at the committee’s findings, he singled out the role of Daniel Domelevo, a former Auditor-General who served on the panel.
“I’m surprised Daniel Domelevo, a former Auditor-General, was on it. He heard us, he saw the evidence. Yet, in the face of all this, they still concluded she misappropriated money. Which money?” he questioned.
Mr Otoo’s comments come after Mr Domelevo, who served as a member of the committee that investigated petitions against former Chief Justice Torkonoo, accused him of submitting a fake document during the proceedings.
Reacting to the allegation, Mr Otoo dismissed the claim. He explained that his earlier comments about audit procedures had been taken out of context.
“This was the context. There was an audit report which raised certain issues. Those findings were sent to the Judicial Secretary, who is the spending officer, and the Judicial Secretary explained, using the travel policy, why certain expenditures were made.”
He said that following the explanation, a management letter was issued, and the issues about alleged irregular expenditures were no longer raised, an indication that the explanations had been accepted.
“That management report is still available for everybody to read,” Mr Otoo added. “This is where I brought in Domelovo. As an experienced and former Auditor-General, I was surprised he sat there quietly when I made reference to management letters and queries—issues he knows very well.”
According to him, even the Director of Finance confirmed during the proceedings that the matters had not reappeared in the management letter. Yet, Mr Domelevo and his team later suggested that the Chief Justice was implicated in financial impropriety.
“How come at the end of it all, you come and tell us that she was not entitled to something?” Mr Otoo asked. “This is the man who should know—he’s the one who understands audit processes and management letters. Yet they ignored all of that and in their report claimed the Chief Justice was involved in some financial irregularity.”
“Did I do anything wrong?” he asked. “I didn’t mention any other person’s name. I only referred to what happened in the audit process.”
Venue Controversy and Security Concerns
Mr Domelevo also addressed concerns raised by the former Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo, about the choice of venue for her petition hearing.
The former CJ, at a press conference in June 2025, claimed that the choice of venue for her petition hearing was only meant to intimidate her, describing the place as a “cordoned high security zone.”
“The work of the Committee is being conducted in a cordoned high security zone on Castle Drive, Osu, where all Article 146 since proceedings since 1993 have been held in facilities of the Judicial Service.
“It is hard not to reach the conclusion that the choice of venue against the backdrop of secrecy of proceedings is intended to intimidate me and to prevent any citizen of Ghana from knowing how the proceedings are conducted,” she noted.
However, in an interview with KSM posted via his YouTube channel on Tuesday, October 7, 2025, Domelevo dismissed Torkornoo’s claim that the committee chose Adu Lodge to intimidate her, arguing that it is not a security zone.
“Maybe you can take a tour to Adu lodge and see there’s no resemblance of gun and etc over there at all,” he stated.
The Chairman of the EOCO Board further explained that Adu Lodge was chosen as a “better place” for the hearing because it was in-camera to avoid public attention.
“And again, because of the requirement that the proceedings should be in-camera, we thought that was a better place because people will not come and mount their camera and be shooting, saying these are panel members, this is the respondent going, and so we thought it was a better appropriate place,” he remarked.
He stressed that the former Chief Justice had no locus to determine the location for the petition hearing because the Committee formed to hear the petition was not a Chief Justice committee, but rather a Presidential Committee and the President had the sole mandate to choose the venue for the petition hearing.
“So, one may ask why not the court complex or the judicial service. The answer is very simple. All other committees under Article 146 are the Chief Justice Committee. It is the Chief Justice who sets up the Committee, so he decides where they sit.
“But when the petition is against the Chief Justice, it is the Presidential Committee. It is the President who sets up the Committee. So, it is not for the Chief Justice to tell us where to sit; it is for the President to tell us where we should sit, so they found a place for us,” he added.
Domelevo noted that it would have been “demeaning” for the former Chief Justice to meet the Committee at the court complex since, at the time, she was the Head of the Judiciary.
“Thirdly, this was the Chief Justice meeting the Committee, and if you should do that in a court complex, it is a bit demeaning, it’s like she’s appearing at her own place where in the past she was the overall boss and now she’s appearing there so we thought it was not the best place,” the former Auditor-General explained.
