The quiet exit of Sophia Akuffo from the Council of State marks the end of a tenure that increasingly placed the former Chief Justice at the centre of one of Ghana’s most sensitive judicial controversies in recent years.
Although her resignation was reportedly submitted in 2025, it has not been publicly announced by either Akuffo or the Presidency. She is also said to have stopped attending Council meetings since then, leaving her departure largely unspoken but widely noted.
A departure without explanation
The Council of State, Ghana’s highest advisory body to the President, plays a critical role in constitutional governance, drawing members from diverse institutional and public backgrounds.
Akuffo’s exit follows months of heightened attention around her involvement in the process that culminated in the removal of former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo. Yet, despite the significance of her position, no formal statement has clarified the reasons for her resignation or confirmed her replacement.
The abstention that stood out
Her most discussed moment came in April 2025 when the Council considered whether a prima facie case existed against Torkornoo. While 30 of 31 members voted in support, Akuffo abstained alone.
That single abstention drew scrutiny, not least because of her former role as Chief Justice. However, she offered no public explanation for her decision at the time.
From decision-maker to witness
In a further twist, Akuffo later appeared before the Article 146 investigative committee at the request of Torkornoo. She voluntarily gave evidence in defence of the suspended Chief Justice before a panel chaired by Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang.
Her participation was unusual, given her simultaneous status as a Council of State member involved in earlier stages of the process.
A sharp critique of the process
By September 2025, Akuffo had become one of the most outspoken critics of the proceedings. In an interview, she argued that the process lacked fairness and went so far as to describe it as resembling a “treason trial.”
She maintained that the allegations against Torkornoo did not meet the threshold required for such a severe outcome as removal from office, warning that the decision raised broader concerns about judicial independence and due process.
Her remarks ignited public debate, placing questions about constitutional procedure and institutional confidentiality firmly in the spotlight.
