Renowned legal practitioner Thaddeus Sory has criticized the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) for what he sees as selective activism and a conspicuous silence in the face of past judicial misconduct. In a statement issued on April 29, he called into question the legal and moral integrity of the Bar’s recent resolution demanding the reinstatement of the suspended Chief Justice and the withdrawal of the Acting Chief Justice’s administrative directive.
“It took two whole days for the Bar’s resolution to even see the light of day,” Mr Sory remarked, questioning both the timing and the sincerity behind the Association’s position, which was passed on Saturday, April 26, but only became public on Tuesday, April 29.
He was particularly critical of the GBA’s demand for the President to revoke the suspension of the Chief Justice, calling the request “legally flawed and disrespectful.”
Thaddeus Sory: Revoke and Suspend the Bar
The GBA’s resolution argued that the President’s actions were “unconstitutional” and taken “in the absence of a published Constitutional Instrument, Statutory Instrument or Regulation(s),” according to Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution. However, Sory rejected this reasoning.
“Article 146(10) of the 1992 Constitution clearly states: ‘… the President may, acting in accordance with the advice of the Council of State, suspend the Chief Justice.’ This means that unless there is advice from the Council of State, the President cannot suspend the Chief Justice,” Sory explained.
“The word ‘may’ here does not grant discretion to act unilaterally. Once advised by the Council of State, the President is constitutionally bound to act—he must suspend.”
But Sory didn’t stop at constitutional interpretation. He pointed out the GBA’s silence in the face of administrative overreach by the now-suspended Chief Justice.
“When she was in office, the Bar raised no objections as she reassigned judges and altered case allocations,” Sory wrote. “Did they then suggest she rely on an algorithm or random generator to assign cases?”
Sory further alleged that unconstitutional and unlawful administrative guidelines were issued under the Chief Justice’s leadership, leading to “financial loss to the Republic through ill-conceived launches.”
He said bluntly, “Where was the Bar when the suspended Chief Justice issued unconstitutional and unlawful administrative guidelines and practice directions?”
If the GBA claims ignorance of these actions, Sory insisted that defence would not be valid: “I wrote publicly on those very matters.”
He accused the Bar of inconsistency, hypocrisy, and politicizing the law.
“The Bar’s position implies that the powers of the office are personal to the suspended Chief Justice,” he said, countering that the administrative authority to assign cases lies with the office of the Chief Justice, not the individual.
“Therefore, anyone constitutionally recognized as the Chief Justice, including one serving in an acting capacity, is empowered by law and practice to assign cases.”
Thaddeus Sory ended by challenging the Bar 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 one of his most striking statements, Sory drew a clear line between legal principle and institutional entitlement: “The law is not in the bosom of the Bar!”
