Prominent attorney, Thaddeus Sory, has expressed his disapproval of the Ghana Bar Association (GBA), for what he terms selective activism and its failure to address previous judicial misconduct.
In a statement issued on April 29, Sory, criticized the GBA’s recent resolution that called for the reinstatement of the suspended Chief Justice and the retraction of the Acting Chief Justice’s administrative directive.
He pointed out the delay in the resolution’s announcement, which was passed on Saturday, April 26, but only made public on Tuesday, April 29.
Sory raised concerns about the timing and authenticity of the GBA’s stance, labeling the demand for the President to reverse the Chief Justice’s suspension as “legally flawed and disrespectful.” The GBA’s resolution claimed that the President’s action was “unconstitutional” due to the lack of a published Constitutional Instrument, Statutory Instrument, or Regulation(s), citing Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution.
However, Sory contested this view, asserting that Article 146(10) of the Constitution clearly indicates that the President may suspend the Chief Justice only after receiving advice from the Council of State.
He clarified, “The term ‘may’ does not provide the discretion to act independently. Once advised by the Council of State, the President is constitutionally obligated to act—he must suspend.”
Sory also questioned the GBA’s silence during the Chief Justice’s time in office, particularly regarding what he called the Chief Justice’s administrative overreach, including the reassignment of judges and altering case allocations.
He pointed out that the GBA did not object to these actions, asking whether they would have preferred a random method to assign cases.
Further, Sory alleged that the suspended Chief Justice issued unconstitutional and unlawful administrative guidelines, leading to “financial loss to the Republic through ill-conceived launches.” He asked, “Where was the Bar when the suspended Chief Justice issued unconstitutional and unlawful administrative guidelines and practice directions?”
Sory criticized the GBA for inconsistency and hypocrisy, accusing the Association of politicizing legal matters. He emphasized that the powers of the Chief Justice are vested in the office, not the individual, and that any constitutionally recognized Chief Justice, including one serving in an acting capacity, is empowered to assign cases.
Sory concluded by daring the GBA to test its claims in court. “There is no need for threats or rhetorical outrage. If the Bar believes it has a case, let it go to court. But history is not on their side. Past attempts have yielded embarrassing defeats.”
In a final remark, Sory made it clear: “The law is not in the bosom of the Bar!”