Ghana's Legal Firebrand Thaddeus Sory Ignites Debate on Judicial Ethics and Accountability

Published 1 month ago3 minute read
Pelumi Ilesanmi
Pelumi Ilesanmi
Ghana's Legal Firebrand Thaddeus Sory Ignites Debate on Judicial Ethics and Accountability

Lawyer and law lecturer Thaddeus Sory has consistently raised pertinent questions regarding Ghana’s moral and constitutional standards, judicial accountability, and the integrity of its legal education system. Speaking on JoyNews’ PM Express on October 20, Mr. Sory articulated a vision for a justice system more aligned with public expectations and transparency, advocating for significant reforms across various facets of governance and law.

A central theme of Mr. Sory’s discourse revolves around the interpretation and application of “stated misbehaviour” under Ghana’s Constitution. He emphasized that this standard is objective and rooted in the expectations of the people, rather than being a vague or subjective concept. He argued that the Constitution, as a compact document, is designed to provide a broad framework for ethical and moral conduct rather than attempting to codify every conceivable act of wrongdoing. Actions such as a Chief Justice becoming intoxicated in office or improperly benefiting from privileges denied to others were cited as clear instances of misbehaviour that erode public confidence.

Mr. Sory strongly advocated for disciplinary committees investigating judicial misconduct to be composed entirely of laypersons. He contended that justice “emanates from the people” and, therefore, the public’s perception of misconduct should guide such judgments, rather than internal judicial sympathies that might create bias among colleagues. He insisted that such a system, while flexible and determined on a case-by-case basis, maintains predictability because public disapproval of conduct that undermines justice serves as a clear measure of accountability.

A stark illustration of this disconnect, according to Mr. Sory, was the removal of former Electoral Commission (EC) Chairperson Charlotte Osei in June 2018. He highlighted that Mrs. Osei’s so-called “offence” was a decision that saved Ghana GH¢15 million by cancelling a contract she deemed lacked value for money. Despite the Public Procurement Authority testifying that there was no breach of procurement laws, she was removed, an outcome Mr. Sory lamented as punishing integrity and reflecting a troubling inversion of societal values.

Furthermore, Mr. Sory called for a fundamental restructuring of legal education in Ghana, urging the General Legal Council (GLC) to relinquish its control over training law students. He argued that the GLC’s dual role in both regulation and training compromises transparency and fairness, fostering confusion and suspicion. He proposed replacing the current system of separate entrance exams and interviews with a single national bar examination accessible to all law graduates. This national exam, he believes, would ensure greater accountability, fairness, and transparency, addressing concerns about opaque admission processes and instances where individuals are called to the bar despite doubts about their academic and attendance records.

Beyond specific institutional critiques, Mr. Sory offered a broader perspective on democracy and accountability. He cautioned against equating the age of a constitution with its perfection, noting that even centuries-old democracies can harbor “atrocious provisions” or flawed systems, such as electoral colleges that allow a president to win with a minority of votes. He stressed that true democracy is defined by integrity, accountability to the people, and public trust, not merely longevity.

Finally, Mr. Sory defended his decision to publicly respond to what he described as deliberate falsehoods from a then-suspended Chief Justice during a press conference. While acknowledging the ethical constraints on lawyers commenting on pending cases, he asserted that his duty to the public to correct misinformation superseded these restrictions on that occasion. He maintained that upholding truth and protecting the integrity of the legal process are paramount, even if it entails a temporary deviation from typical professional restraint, underscoring his unwavering commitment to standards and principles rooted in his upbringing.

Recommended Articles

Loading...

You may also like...