Ayikoi Otoo fires back at Domelovo over ‘fake document’ allegation in former CJ probe

Lead counsel for former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, Nii Ayikoi Otoo, has dismissed as false and politically motivated claims by former Auditor-General Daniel Yao Domelovo that he presented fake documents to the committee investigating the former CJ.

Domelovo, who served on the investigative committee, alleged during an appearance on *The KSM Show* that Mr. Otoo tendered a forged letter purportedly appointing Justice Torkornoo as Chief Justice. He claimed the document was invalid because it was signed by the Judicial Secretary rather than the President.

“It will interest you to know that it is the junior of the CJ, the Judicial Secretary, who appointed the CJ. That letter he produced is signed by the Judicial Secretary appointing a CJ,” Domelovo alleged, describing the document as “fake.”

Reacting to the claim in an interview on Citi FM’s *Eyewitness News* on Tuesday, October 7, Ayikoi Otoo said he was astonished by Domelovo’s comments, which he described as baseless and an attempt to deflect from the committee’s “shoddy and politically influenced” work.

“I have listened to him, and I am shocked by the things he went and sat there to do,” Otoo stated. “If only he was doing politics. I have exposed them — they did a shoddy job, and now they are trying to find some face-saving measures.”

The former Attorney-General maintained that the document in question was legitimate and had been grossly misrepresented. He explained that the letter presented to the committee was not an appointment warrant but a standard communication from the Judicial Service outlining interim administrative arrangements.

“As an Article 71 office holder, the Chief Justice’s full entitlements, including salaries and privileges, are determined by a constitutionally mandated five-member committee after leaving office,” he explained. “Until then, internal policies of the Judicial Service guide those interim conditions.”

Mr. Otoo questioned Domelovo’s reasoning, insisting that the existence of a Judicial Service letter could not be construed as forgery.

“Were you not in this country when the CJ was appointed? Didn’t we know when she was appointed? Didn’t we see that the President gave a warrant? That warrant of appointment will not contain your terms of service,” he said. “When the person brings you a letter signed by the spending officer and you call it a forgery, it beats everyone’s imagination — unless we have put him too high, beyond where he really belongs.”

He reiterated that the committee was never presented with any forged documents, only an official letter from the Judicial Service. “So nothing of the sort happened. We only presented the letter,” Otoo stressed.