President of the Ghana Bar Association (GBA), Efua Ghartey, has invoked a biblical admonition in expressing the Bar’s disappointment with remarks attributed to Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie concerning state-owned enterprises.

Mrs Ghartey said although the Bar was reluctant to interpret the Chief Justice’s comments as reflecting any underlying sentiment, the remarks had nonetheless raised concerns among members of the legal profession.

“We do not want to believe that what happened is a fulfilment of Matthew 12:34, which says, ‘Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh,’” she stated.

Mrs Ghartey also criticised the response issued by the Judicial Service in an apparent attempt to explain or defend the Chief Justice’s comments.

According to her, the explanation did little to address the concerns raised by the GBA.

“Respectfully, the Judicial Secretary’s attempted defence of the Chief Justice was, at best, lacklustre,” she said.

She stressed that the GBA’s position should not be construed as an attempt to undermine the Judiciary or its independence.

Rather, she reaffirmed the Bar’s commitment to protecting the independence of the Judiciary as guaranteed under the 1992 Constitution.

Mrs Ghartey, however, cautioned that the protection of judicial independence must go hand in hand with respect for the constitutional limits governing public office holders.

She specifically referred to Article 128(4) of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees the independence of the Judiciary, and said the Bar remained committed to upholding that principle.

“The Bar wishes to serve a reminder that much as it is poised to protect the independence of the Judiciary, as per Article 128(4) of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, the guarded must stay within their bounds as dictated by their calling in the Constitution,” she said.

Mrs Ghartey stressed that persons entrusted with constitutional responsibilities must remain within the limits of their respective mandates.

She said defending judicial independence did not mean constitutional office holders were exempt from scrutiny or from the obligation to conduct themselves within the boundaries of their offices.