By Daniel Bampoe
The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) has publicly challenged a recent circular issued by the Judicial Secretary, Musah Ahmed, raising concerns over its legality and compatibility with existing Ghanaian law.
The dispute highlights tensions between the Bar and the Judiciary regarding procedures for enforcing judgments against the State.
The controversy stems from a circular dated February 5, 2026, circulated by the Judicial Secretary to all court registrars.
The circular sought to “streamline” the execution of judgments against the State by requiring that all garnishee proceedings first be reported to the Judicial Secretary, who would then issue directives before any execution could proceed.
According to sources within the Judiciary, the initiative was intended to enhance oversight and coordination in the enforcement of State liabilities.
However, the GBA, through its Secretary, Kwaku Gyau Baffour, has strongly rebuffed the circular.
In a formal letter dated February 23, 2026, the association argued that the directive was inconsistent with the State Proceedings Act, 1998 (Act 555), which governs how legal actions against the State are processed.
The association contends that requiring registrars to seek approval from the Judicial Secretary before executing valid court judgments is alien to Ghanaian law and undermines the independence of the courts.
The GBA’s letter, which was copied to the Chief Justice, the Deputy Judicial Secretary, and the Manager of the Accra Court Complex, formally demands the immediate withdrawal of the circular.
“The instruction is extraneous to the provisions of the State Proceedings Act and creates unnecessary administrative barriers to the execution of lawful judgments against the State,” the letter reads in part.
Legal experts have described the dispute as a significant test of the balance of power between Ghana’s legal institutions.
The State Proceedings Act already outlines the framework for serving the State and garnishee actions, and lawyers argue that the circular effectively introduces an additional layer of approval not mandated by law.
This is not the first time the GBA has publicly challenged procedural directives from the Judicial Service.
Over the years, the association has acted as a watchdog, defending the constitutional mandate of courts and advocating for adherence to statutory provisions.
Observers note that this latest confrontation underscores ongoing friction between administrative oversight and judicial independence in the legal system.
The Judiciary has yet to respond formally to the GBA’s rebuttal, and it remains unclear whether the circular will be withdrawn or revised.
