Lawyer and law lecturer Thaddeus Sory is calling for judicial misconduct cases to be handled entirely by committees made up of ordinary citizens, not judges.

Speaking on JoyNews’ PM Express on October 20, he said justice “emanates from the people,” and it is, therefore, the people who must determine what constitutes stated misbehaviour by judges or justices.

He argued that the standards for judicial conduct should reflect public perception and expectations, not internal judicial sympathies.

“If your Chief Justice does this particular type of thing, would you still have confidence in her as the person to lead the justice system?” he asked.

According to him, committees investigating judges often include their colleagues, which creates bias.

“You can see the judges who work with her beginning to think that, oh, you know, it’s one of us. It could have been any of us.

"But the ordinary person who sits down there says, if the Chief Justice can decide that I will take money that I know I don’t have the right to, with the weirdest excuse that it was given to me by somebody who works under me, what do you think the ordinary man will think?”

He insisted that only laypersons can fairly assess whether such conduct amounts to misbehaviour.

“For me, we should make all of those people lay people,” he said. “We, those involved in the justice system, judge ordinary men from whom justice emanates. If it affects us, let them also judge us.”

Mr. Sory explained that “stated misbehaviour” cannot be fully defined in law because it covers a wide range of conduct.

“It’s very objective,” he said, adding that the Constitution only provides a framework. “If you make it too ordinary and regulate every matter, it will look like a very ordinary document, and people don’t respect it.”

He gave examples of actions that could amount to misbehaviour, such as a Chief Justice getting drunk in office or benefiting improperly from state privileges while denying others similar treatment.

“Can you set all of that out? That’s not possible,” he said.

He maintained that such matters must be decided case by case by the committee, guided by society’s standards.

“Yes, and it’s based on standards that must reflect the country’s own perception of what they expect,” he said.

Responding to concerns that this could lead to abuse or unpredictability, Mr. Sory disagreed. “It has predictability,” he insisted.

“Once I am sitting down there and interjecting and not allowing people who are watching proceedings in public to understand that at least in the court of law you should be heard, the public will tell you they don’t like that.”

He emphasised that public confidence in justice is paramount.

“At the end of the day, everybody is accountable to society. If they say they don’t like your style, you are too gentle, you should account to them,” he said.

Referencing past controversies, he cited the case of former Electoral Commission Chair Charlotte Osei, who was removed despite saving the country millions.

“Her crime was that she saved Ghana GH¢15 million,” he said. “If that is what the society wants, so be it.”

Mr. Sory concluded that the people must have the ultimate say in how judges are judged. “Let the people judge the judges,” he stressed.