Dela Sky writes: A Cautious Voice in Troubled Times: The GBA Could Have Done More

Respectfully,

The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) has released a formal statement in response to the unfolding process aimed at removing the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana. While the Association acknowledges the constitutional framework provided under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, it underscores the imperative of upholding due process, preserving the rule of law, and safeguarding judicial independence. The GBA calls on all actors involved to act with integrity, fairness, and fidelity to the spirit of the Constitution. It reaffirms its role as a guardian of justice, the legal profession’s integrity, and the conscience of the nation.

However, the tone and posture of the GBA’s statement appear overly cautious—arguably falling short of the assertiveness and moral clarity expected from such a formidable institution at a moment of constitutional uncertainty. In times like these, when the very foundations of democratic governance are tested, restraint must not come at the expense of principled and courageous leadership.

1. Timidity in Tone and Posture

The GBA’s statement adopts a measured and cautious tone that borders on timidity in the face of what appears to be a constitutional and democratic crisis. Given the gravity of a sitting Chief Justice’s suspension, the GBA’s role as the voice of the legal profession demands a more assertive and proactive defense of judicial independence, not just hopeful language.

2. Lack of Specific Condemnation

Nowhere in the statement does the GBA explicitly question or challenge the legality, propriety, or timing of the President’s action to suspend the Chief Justice—an omission that undermines its self-proclaimed role as “the conscience of society.” This weakens public confidence in the Bar’s willingness to confront political overreach.

3. Over-Reliance on Constitutional Provisions

While the GBA cites Articles 146 and 296 of the Constitution, it does so in a passive and descriptive manner, avoiding critical legal analysis of whether these provisions were properly invoked or potentially manipulated. This makes the statement read like a civics lesson rather than a defensive brief for judicial integrity.

4. Sub Judice Overemphasised

The invocation of the sub judice rule appears to be used as a shield to avoid taking a principled stance. While respect for ongoing judicial processes is important, it should not silence legitimate commentary on potential procedural violations, alleged abuse of discretion, or threats to the separation of powers.

5. Absence of Call to Action

The GBA falls short of demanding the necessary fairness, transparency, and accountability that such a momentous constitutional process requires. It notably fails to appeal to the Supreme Court to treat the pending lawsuits and applications with the urgency they deserve, and to deliver fair, just, and timely rulings and or judgments that not only put the law on the right path and uphold the integrity of the judiciary but also prevent a repetition of the “

‘Dormelevo Injustice.’ In periods of democratic strain, institutional silence or cautious neutrality does not preserve stability—it risks legitimising potential unconstitutional conduct.

6. No Defence of the Chief Justice as an Office

Crucially, the statement does not defend the dignity of the Office of the Chief Justice, which must be protected regardless of who occupies it. By failing to assert this with all the firmness it can command, the GBA allows the judiciary’s image to be quietly eroded under the guise of legal formalism and neutrality.

Conclusion

The GBA’s statement, while well-intentioned and diplomatically worded, lacks the moral clarity, legal assertiveness, and institutional courage expected of, arguably, the foremost defender of the Rule of Law. At a time when Ghana’s democratic institutions are being tested, the GBA should have spoken not only as lawyers, but also as guardians of justice and public trust.

-rD.s