CJ’s suspension: Thaddeus Sory reacts to GBA’s resolution

Lawyer Thaddeus Sory critiques the Ghana Bar Association’s latest resolution, calling it legally unsound, inconsistent, and misguided.

A late revelation raises eyebrows

Two full days after the Ghana Bar Association passed a resolution on April 26, 2025, the document only surfaced publicly on the afternoon of April 29. The delay, according to lawyer Thaddeus Sory, might be telling. What should have been a timely and transparent response has emerged under a cloud of hesitation, which, for Sory, sets the tone for the Bar’s entire position.

The GBA’s demands: withdraw and revoke

In its resolution, the GBA made two key demands:

1. The Acting Chief Justice should immediately withdraw his directive regarding the assignment of cases.

2. The President should revoke his suspension of the Chief Justice.

The Bar argues that both actions are unconstitutional and lack a legal basis under Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution. The President, they claim, has overstepped his powers without the necessary regulatory backing.

Sory responds: “Legally flawed and disrespectful”

Sory doesn’t mince words. He describes the GBA’s demands as “legally flawed and disrespectful,” and criticizes what he sees as contradictions within the Bar’s own recent communications. According to him, the Bar’s resolution departs sharply from a previous statement they issued only days prior.

Who has the power to assign cases?

The power to assign cases, Sory argues, is vested in the office of the Chief Justice—not the individual. Therefore, whether the office is held permanently or in an acting capacity, its authority remains intact. The Acting Chief Justice, by law and practice, is within his rights to assign cases.

Sory points out a perceived hypocrisy: when the now-suspended Chief Justice reassigned judges or made administrative decisions, the Bar raised no objection. He questions why similar actions by an Acting Chief Justice should now provoke such strong condemnation.

Selective outrage and unanswered violations

Sory also accuses the Bar of selective outrage. He recalls that the suspended Chief Justice had previously issued what he calls “unconstitutional and unlawful” administrative guidelines. These actions, he claims, resulted in financial losses to the state, yet the Bar remained silent.

“If the Bar claims ignorance,” he adds pointedly, “I wrote publicly on those very matters.”

The suspension debate: What Article 146(10) really says

Central to the GBA’s protest is their interpretation of Article 146(10) of the Constitution. Sory argues that the President’s power to suspend the Chief Justice isn’t arbitrary. Rather, it must follow advice from the Council of State. If that advice exists, the President is constitutionally bound to act.

“The word ‘may’ does not suggest discretion to disregard advice,” Sory explains. “It means the President must act upon that advice.”

Let the courts decide—but history isn’t on the Bar’s side

To Sory, the answer is clear: if the Bar believes its interpretation holds legal merit, it should test its claims in court. But he warns that history does not favor such moves. Previous legal attempts by the Bar, he says, have ended in “embarrassing defeats,” and even outside constitutional challenges, the Bar has lost to individuals like lawyer Ward Brew.

A final rebuke: The law belongs to all

In a sharp and final critique, Thaddeus Sory reminds the Bar that it does not have a monopoly on constitutional interpretation: “The law is not in the bosom of the Bar.”

His message is unmistakable: legal authority flows from the Constitution and the courts, not from professional associations—even one as venerable as the GBA.