Private legal practitioner, Thaddeus Sorry
Private legal practitioner Thaddeus Sory has described as legally flawed and disrespectful the demands made by the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) concerning the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.
The GBA, among other things, in a resolution issued on Tuesday, April 29, 2025, resolved that the Acting Chief Justice should withdraw his directive “on the assignment of cases,” and that the President should revoke the “suspension of the Chief Justice.”
According to the Bar, the Acting Chief Justice’s directive is “uncertain,” and the President’s suspension of the Chief Justice is “unconstitutional.”
Their reasoning is that the President, who is neither a judge nor a judicial officer, exercised discretion “in the absence of a published Constitutional Instrument, Statutory Instrument or Regulation(s),” as required under Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution.
However, Thaddeus Sory, in a statement, argued that these demands expose a troubling inconsistency in the Bar’s reasoning. He noted that just days ago, the Bar issued a statement that now seems at odds with its own resolution.
Sory contended that, by law and longstanding practice, the power to assign cases is an administrative function of the Chief Justice. He explained that this function pertains to the office of the Chief Justice—not the individual currently holding the title.
“Therefore, anyone constitutionally recognized as the Chief Justice, including one serving in an acting capacity, is empowered by law and practice to assign cases. The suspended Chief Justice exercised that function while in office. Now, the Acting Chief Justice must do the same.”
He added: “The Bar’s position implies that the powers of the office are personal to the suspended Chief Justice. But when she was in office, the Bar raised no objections as she reassigned judges and altered case allocations. Did they then suggest she rely on an algorithm or random generator to assign cases? Were her removals and replacements of judges questioned?”
Sory further challenged the Bar:
“Where was the Bar when the suspended Chief Justice issued unconstitutional and unlawful administrative guidelines and practice directions, actions that not only violated legal norms but also resulted in financial loss to the Republic through ill-conceived launches?”
He added, “And if the Bar claims ignorance, I wrote publicly on those very matters.”
Citing Article 146(10) of the 1992 Constitution, he explained: “… the President may, acting in accordance with the advice of the Council of State, suspend the Chief Justice.”
He emphasized that this means, unless there is advice from the Council of State, the President cannot suspend the Chief Justice. The word “may” in this context does not grant discretion to act unilaterally. Once advised by the Council of State, the President is constitutionally bound to act, he must suspend.
Sory concluded that there is no need for threats or rhetorical outrage, and added: “If the Bar believes it has a case, let it go to court.”
He was quick to add: “But history is not on their side. Past attempts have yielded embarrassing defeats. Even outside of constitutional litigation, our respected colleague Ward Brew has repeatedly prevailed in court against the Bar. The law is not the sole preserve of the Bar’s interpretation. The law is not in the bosom of the Bar!”
KA
Is Mahama also a traitor for meeting Akufo-Addo? Watch as Koku Anyidoho questions Ghanaians
