By Nadia Ntiamoah
The Supreme Court has delivered a strong rebuke to a lawyer who launched a personal attack on a High Court judge in a certiorari application, describing portions of his court processes as inappropriate and directing him to withdraw the offending statements before proceeding with the case.
The five-member panel of the Apex Court, comprising Justices Gabriel Scott Pwamang, Kwoffie, Darko Asare, Dennis Dominic Adjei and Suurbaareh, took exception to the language used by counsel for the applicants in a motion seeking to quash a decision of the High Court in Koforidua.
The proceedings arose in the case titled Republic v. High Court, Koforidua; Ex Parte Emmanuel Opare & 2 Others (Suit No. J5/70/2026), heard on Tuesday, June 23, 2026.
The applicants had invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by filing a certiorari application challenging an order made by the Koforidua High Court, presided over by Justice George Krofa Addae.
However, instead of limiting the application to legal arguments challenging the decision of the High Court, counsel included several allegations questioning the competence, conduct and impartiality of the trial judge.
During the hearing, members of the Supreme Court panel shifted attention from the merits of the certiorari application to what they considered offensive and intemperate language directed at Justice Krofa Addae.
Justice Darko Asare was the first to raise concerns over the wording contained in paragraph 28 of the applicant’s motion.
Reading directly from the court documents, the Justice highlighted the statement alleging that Justice George Krofa Addae had “often displayed a lack of fidelity to the law, court procedure, rules and processes” and had proceeded to issue executory orders despite pending applications for stay of execution.
Justice Darko Asare expressed clear dissatisfaction with the language, indicating that such allegations against a judicial officer were unacceptable in court processes.
He then referred counsel to paragraph 36 of the accompanying affidavit, where the applicant alleged that the judge’s actions constituted “consistent deliberate and injurious acts.”
Looking directly at counsel, Justice Darko Asare firmly stated, “You cannot use that language.”
The criticism quickly gathered momentum as Justice Dennis Dominic Adjei also challenged counsel over the tone adopted in the application.
In a pointed question reflecting the Court’s displeasure, Justice Adjei asked, “Is that what you are taught at the Bar?”
The exchange intensified when the President of the panel, Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, intervened.
Clearly unhappy with the direction of the submissions, Justice Pwamang accused counsel of personalising judicial proceedings instead of addressing the legal issues before the Court.
“We are here doing our work and you are personalising it. You must withdraw,” Justice Pwamang directed.
Faced with unanimous disapproval from the Bench, counsel for the applicants withdrew the disputed paragraphs and apologised to the Court.
He told the Justices that the language employed was not characteristic of his professional conduct and explained that such an approach did not reflect the manner in which he had previously appeared before the Supreme Court.
Following the withdrawal of the offensive statements, counsel proceeded with arguments in support of the certiorari application.
However, after hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the application, ruling that it lacked merit.
An interesting moment followed after the ruling when counsel representing the interested parties rose to address the Court.
Justice Kwoffie questioned why he intended to speak, observing that the Court itself had effectively dealt with the arguments advanced by the applicants.
Counsel explained that he merely wished to associate himself with the apology rendered by his colleague and to express regret over the language used against the High Court judge.
Delivering the Court’s decision, Justice Pwamang described the withdrawn statements as “distasteful” but took into account the apology and withdrawal when considering the issue of costs.
Although counsel for the interested parties had requested costs of GH¢200,000 against the applicants, the Supreme Court exercised its discretion to award GH¢30,000.
The ruling serves as another reminder of the legal profession’s ethical obligation to maintain respect for the judiciary while vigorously representing clients.
Although lawyers are entitled to challenge judicial decisions through appeals, reviews and applications for certiorari, the courts have consistently emphasised that such challenges must be confined to legal arguments rather than personal attacks on judges.
The decision also reinforces the Supreme Court’s supervisory role over lower courts while underscoring that advocacy must remain within the bounds of professional courtesy, judicial decorum and established rules governing legal practice.
