Private legal practitioner and law lecturer Thaddeus Sory has stated that any Chief Justice who accepts benefits she has previously denied others is guilty of “stated misbehaviour” under Ghana’s Constitution.
Speaking on JoyNews’ PM Express on Monday, October 20, Mr. Sory explained that misconduct in public office—especially within the judiciary—is not a matter of opinion but an objective and measurable standard rooted in constitutional principles and public expectations.
“It is very objective,” he said. “The Constitution is not meant to spell out every detail but to provide a compact framework that guides the conduct of governance.”
He stressed that public trust is the foundation of judicial legitimacy, noting that “the Constitution says justice emanates from the people. So the people have a certain expectation of you.”
Mr. Sory warned that when a Chief Justice contradicts her own rulings by benefiting from privileges she previously denied to others, it undermines the integrity of the justice system.
Read Also: Parliament reconvenes today for final session of 2025
“If the Chief Justice gets drunk whilst in office, that’s a stated misbehaviour. If she has ruled that Article 71 office holders cannot extend benefits to their family members, yet she accepts such benefits herself—based on an excuse from a subordinate—that is misbehaviour,” he asserted.
He cautioned that such conduct erodes public confidence in the judiciary, asking rhetorically:
“If your Chief Justice can decide to take money she knows she’s not entitled to, claiming it was given by someone who works under her, what will the ordinary person think?”
Mr. Sory further argued that standards of judicial conduct must reflect public morality, not insider protection. He suggested that disciplinary committees investigating judges should include more ordinary citizens, as their perspective aligns with public expectations of fairness.
He elaborated that while the Constitution provides only general guidance, investigative committees must interpret ‘stated misbehaviour’ in light of societal values.
“They could decide that using public funds for a plane ticket for your husband and daughter—when district courts lack basic facilities—amounts to misbehaviour,” he noted.
Comparing the situation to the removal of former Electoral Commission Chairperson Charlotte Osei, Mr. Sory argued that her case highlighted an inversion of justice.
“Her so-called crime was saving Ghana GH¢15 million by cancelling a contract that had no value for money. Yet she was removed. If that is what society wants, so be it,” he said.
He insisted that judges must be subject to the same scrutiny as ordinary citizens, stating:
“Those in the justice system judge ordinary men. If it affects us, let them also judge us.”
On concerns that such accountability processes might be abused, he dismissed those fears, saying:
“There is predictability. If the public sees that the head of an institution meant to ensure justice is reversing justice, they will naturally reject it.”
Mr. Sory concluded that public confidence—not privilege—is the true standard of judicial accountability.
“Everybody is accountable to society. If the people say they don’t like your conduct, so be it,” he said.
Story By: Afia Ohenewaa Akyerem