BY DANIEL BAMPOE
A fresh disagreement has emerged between the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) and the government over the conduct of public officials, following sharp criticism by the Bar of comments made by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie about the performance of state-owned institutions under the current administration.
The controversy has also triggered a response from Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, who has questioned the independence and consistency of the GBA’s leadership in its decision to criticise the Chief Justice.
The dispute centres on remarks made by Justice Baffoe-Bonnie during a visit to the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF) on September 2, 2026.
During the visit, the Chief Justice commended MIIF and other public institutions for developments he had observed under the current administration, while questioning what Ghana had been doing during the previous eight years.
Addressing the Ghana Bar Association Conference 2026/27 in Ada on Monday, September 14, GBA President Efua Ghartey said the association was uncomfortable with the Chief Justice’s remarks, particularly the apparent comparison between the performance of a public institution under the current administration and that of a previous government.
The conference was held under the theme, “150 Years of Ghana’s Legal Evolution: Transforming the Profession and Driving its Future with Industry.”
Ms Ghartey said the fact that the comments came from the Chief Justice made them particularly concerning because of the constitutional position and responsibilities attached to the office.
“The recent commendation of a public institution and the comparison to a past government’s output, by no mean a person than the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana, left much to be desired,” she said.
The GBA President stopped short of attributing a political motive to the Chief Justice but said the Bar was concerned enough to draw attention to the implications of such public comments.
She referred to Matthew 12:34 of the Bible, saying the association did not want to believe the Chief Justice’s remarks reflected any underlying sentiment.
“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.
GBA Rejects Explanation from Judicial Secretary
Ghartey also took issue with an explanation subsequently offered by the Judicial Secretary in an apparent attempt to clarify or defend the Chief Justice’s comments.
According to her, the explanation did not adequately resolve the concerns raised by the Bar.
“Respectfully, the Judicial Secretary’s attempted defence of the Chief Justice was, at best, lacklustre,” she said.
The GBA President, however, was careful to distinguish the association’s criticism from any attempt to interfere with or undermine the independence of the Judiciary.
She reaffirmed the Bar’s commitment to protecting judicial independence as guaranteed by the 1992 Constitution, specifically referencing Article 128(4).
Ms Ghartey nevertheless stressed that constitutional independence does not mean that holders of public office are free from the boundaries and expectations imposed by the Constitution and their respective offices.
“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.
She added that people entrusted with constitutional responsibilities must remain within the limits of their respective mandates.
Srem-Sai Challenges GBA’s Consistency
The GBA’s position has, however, been challenged by Dr Justice Srem-Sai, who questioned whether the association applies its standards consistently when commenting on statements made by political actors and judicial officers.
Speaking on Joy FM’s Top Story on Monday, September 14, the Deputy Attorney-General said the issue was not simply whether the Chief Justice’s comments could be interpreted as political.
Instead, he argued that the more important question was whether the GBA itself had responded consistently to comparable statements made by Chief Justices and other judicial officers.
“Independence is not a presumed conference,” Dr Srem-Sai said, arguing that independence must be demonstrated through an organisation’s conduct rather than merely asserted.
He said the same principle applied to consistency, insisting that an institution claiming to be independent and consistent must demonstrate those qualities through its actions.
“The point that we made at the conference is that when it comes to independence and when it comes to consistency, the leadership of the Ghana Bar Association leaves much to be desired,” he said.
Dr Srem-Sai said the controversy should therefore not be reduced to a debate over whether Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s comments were political.
“I don’t think the issue that was up for discussion today was about the Chief Justice’s speech; it’s about the Ghana Bar Association’s response to the speech that the Chief Justice gave,” he said.
According to him, the GBA must be prepared to apply the same standards whenever similar comments are made by serving Chief Justices or other judges.
He argued that if the association believes that judicial officers should avoid comments that could be perceived as political, then that principle must be applied regardless of the individual or the political context involved.
“If you condemn some and not condemn others, that is where the issue is,” he said.
Dr Srem-Sai consequently maintained that the fundamental issue was whether the Bar’s interventions were genuinely independent, consistent and free from selectivity.
GBA Denies Political Bias
The criticism from the Deputy Attorney-General has prompted a further defence from the GBA, with its Deputy General Secretary, Saviour Kudze, rejecting suggestions that the association selectively targets particular political actors.
Speaking on Top Story, Kudze insisted that the Ghana Bar Association is a professional organisation made up of lawyers and does not align itself with any political party or government.
“Ghana Bar Association is not a political institution. It’s an association of lawyers, professional lawyers. The fact that we issue statements or criticise issues at times that people are not comfortable with doesn’t mean that we are a political association, or we support a certain political regime,” he said.
Kudze argued that the Bar has demonstrated consistency by expressing concerns about statements from politicians across the political divide.
He cited previous interventions involving Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin and NDC Member of Parliament Francis-Xavier Sosu, saying the association’s position has not been determined by which political party an individual belongs to.
