Prominent constitutional lawyer Thaddeus Sory has launched a scathing critique of the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) over its recent resolution demanding the revocation of the Chief Justice’s suspension and withdrawal of a directive issued by the Acting Chief Justice. Sory accused the GBA of hypocrisy, legal ignorance, and double standards, dismissing their resolution as “legally flawed and disrespectful.”
Sory challenged the GBA’s interpretation of constitutional provisions, questioning their motives and timing. He argued that the power to assign cases is an administrative function of the Chief Justice’s office, not the individual holding the title, and that the Acting Chief Justice has every right to perform this role.
Sory pointed out inconsistencies in the GBA’s reasoning, noting that they remained silent when the suspended Chief Justice reassigned judges and altered case allocations while in office. He also highlighted the GBA’s failure to speak out against past abuses, including unconstitutional and unlawful administrative guidelines and practice directions that caused financial loss to the state.
On the constitutional question, Sory cited Article 146(10) of the 1992 Constitution, which grants the President the power to suspend the Chief Justice acting in accordance with the advice of the Council of State. He argued that the President is constitutionally bound to act once advised by the Council of State.
Sory challenged the GBA to pursue legal action if they truly believe they have a case, warning that precedent is not on their side. He also reminded his colleagues that the law is not the sole preserve of the Bar’s interpretation, citing instances where colleagues have prevailed in court against the GBA.
Sory’s rebuke raises fundamental questions about the GBA’s role in interpreting the law and its commitment to upholding constitutional principles. As the debate continues, it remains to be seen how the GBA will respond to Sory’s criticisms and whether they will take up his challenge to pursue legal action.