Deputy Attorney General Justice Srem Sai has questioned the legal competence and constitutional fidelity of the Ghana Bar Association (GBA).

This follows its recent resolution calling for the withdrawal of the Acting Chief Justice’s directive and the reinstatement of the suspended Chief Justice.

Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Tuesday, April 29, Srem Sai criticised the process, logic, and implications of the Bar’s position.

He said the resolution, passed by just 45 individuals but issued in the name of an association of over 5,000 lawyers, lacked the intellectual and legal rigour expected of such a body.

“Someone might have prompted, though, that the resolution of 45 people, which is going to be attributed to an association of over 5,000 people, should be carefully thought out before it is even printed on the letterhead of the GBA,” he said.

But his concern wasn’t just about numbers. It was about principle.

“Law is not democracy,” he stated. “So that when 10,000 people say this is the meaning of the law, and one person says this is not the meaning of the law, then the 10,000 will win. It doesn’t work that way.”

He reminded his fellow legal practitioners that the law is anchored not in popular opinion but in sound reasoning, case law, and the Constitution.

“Law is backed by legal reasoning, paying attention to legal precedence, reading text and reading them in the light of decided cases.”

Justice Srem Sai pointed out that the subject of the GBA’s resolution, the President’s suspension of the Chief Justice, had already been addressed by the Supreme Court.

“As stated by other colleagues who were on the show, there is already a decision on this matter. So to pass a resolution on something which the Supreme Court has already decided and expect that the resolution should take precedence over the binding Constitution is one thing that I cannot imagine will happen in an assembly of lawyers.”

He was even more alarmed by the GBA’s call for the President to publish details of the prima facie determination against the Chief Justice — something he says the Constitution strictly forbids.

“One point in the resolution says that the President should go ahead and publish the prima facie decision, when we all know that the Constitution commands that the process should not be done in public.”

He said the law is clear on this matter.

“There have been at least three decisions confirming that — not the petition, not the conversation around it, not the content of the petition, not the process and what happened in the proceedings should be made public.”

That, he said, is the constitutional command.

“So if, in the light of this strong constitutional injunction supported by well-decided cases, the GBA — an assembly of lawyers — can actually pass a resolution calling on the President to make what the Constitution requires to be private, public, then there’s a problem with that.”