Renowned legal practitioner Thaddeus Sory has taken the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) to the cleaners, accusing it of selective activism and deafening silence in the face of past judicial misconduct.

In a statement released on April 29, he challenged the legal and moral coherence of the Bar’s recent resolution demanding the reinstatement of the suspended Chief Justice and 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 noted, questioning both the timing and sincerity of the Association’s position, which was passed on Saturday, April 26, but only surfaced publicly on Tuesday, April 29.

He did not mince words about the GBA’s call for the President to revoke the suspension of the Chief Justice, labelling the demand “legally flawed and disrespectful.”

Thaddues Sory: Revoke and suspend the Bar

According to the GBA resolution, the President’s action was “unconstitutional” and taken “in the absence of a published Constitutional Instrument, Statutory Instrument or Regulation(s),” per Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution. But Sory dismissed this reasoning outright.

“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,” the lawyer wrote.

“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 it wasn’t just constitutional interpretation that Thaddeus Sory took issue with. He pointedly asked why the GBA had remained silent during what he described as troubling 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,” he wrote.

“Did they then suggest she rely on an algorithm or random generator to assign cases?”

Mr Sory went further to allege that under the Chief Justice’s leadership, unconstitutional and unlawful administrative guidelines were issued, causing “financial loss to the Republic through ill-conceived launches.”

He stated bluntly: “Where was the Bar when the suspended Chief Justice issued unconstitutional and unlawful administrative guidelines and practice directions?”

If the GBA claims it was unaware of these actions, Mr Sory insisted, that defence would not hold: “I wrote publicly on those very matters.”

He accused the Association of inconsistency, hypocrisy, and playing politics with 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 recognised as the Chief Justice, including one serving in an acting capacity, is empowered by law and practice to assign cases.”

Thaddues Sory concluded by daring 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.”

And in one of the most striking declarations of his piece, Sory drew a clear line between legal principle and institutional entitlement: “The law is not in the bosom of the Bar!”