Private legal practitioner Thaddeus Sory has urged lawyers to pursue established legal procedures when dissatisfied with judicial decisions. He stated that lawyers should avoid turning to the media, public pressure, or boycotts. This call comes amid ongoing controversy regarding a directive by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie.
The Chief Justice’s directive allows selected High Court judges to sit during the legal vacation. Lawyers representing former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and former National Food Buffer Stock Company Chief Executive Officer Hanan Abdul-Wahab have opposed this arrangement. They sought to defer their cases until October, marking the new legal year.
Mr. Sory’s comments highlight a critical debate within Ghana’s legal community. This discussion focuses on the appropriate methods for addressing judicial disagreements. It also touches on the balance between public transparency and maintaining the integrity of legal processes. The legal vacation directive has sparked significant discussion among legal professionals and the public.
Speaking on the KSM Show on Monday, August 17, 2026, Mr. Sory emphasized that lawyers have several avenues available. These include challenging rulings through the courts. He stated, “The judge is going to write the ruling. You can challenge it.” This underscores the formal mechanisms built into the legal system for appeals and reviews.
Mr. Sory also encouraged lawyers with concerns about the Chief Justice’s directive to engage him directly. He suggested presenting their objections through dialogue rather than immediately resorting to public campaigns. He advised, “If you are not happy with the Chief Justice’s decision, you can actually go and meet up with the Chief Justice and say, look, as parties, we want to come and discuss this directive.”
He further cautioned against alleging political interference or bias before exhausting available legal remedies. Mr. Sory questioned the rationale behind using public statements to address judicial disagreements. He urged lawyers to engage the system through the appropriate channels. “Why don’t we engage the system in the appropriate way?” he asked, stressing adherence to protocol.
Media campaigns on contentious judicial matters could sometimes inflame public sentiment, he noted. This might hinder rather than help resolve disputes. Mr. Sory suggested that such campaigns might aim to “just inflame passions to get people to think the way they want them to think.” This perspective highlights the potential for media to be misused in legal contexts.
The legal community’s response to the Chief Justice’s directive will be closely watched. This situation could influence future judicial administration and legal practice in Ghana. It also raises questions about the role of public opinion in legal matters. Stakeholders will observe how lawyers navigate these procedural and ethical considerations. The outcome may set precedents for addressing similar issues in the future.
This ongoing debate underscores the importance of maintaining public trust in the judiciary. It also emphasizes the need for clear, established procedures for dispute resolution. The legal profession must balance advocacy for clients with respect for institutional processes. This ensures the stability and credibility of Ghana’s justice system. The discussion contributes to broader conversations about judicial independence and accountability.