Private legal practitioner and law lecturer, Thaddeus Sory, says a Chief Justice who takes benefits she has denied others engages in “stated misbehaviour” under the Constitution.
Speaking on JoyNews’ PM Express on Monday, October 20, he explained that misconduct in public office, particularly within the judiciary, is not a vague or subjective concept but a clearly measurable standard grounded in the people’s expectations.
“It is very objective,” he stressed. “When you talk about the fundamental law of the land, you are not seeking to set out everything in detail.
“The Constitution must be a compact document that sets out generally what we expect our framework of government to be like.”
Read also: Misbehaviour under the Constitution is objective, not opinion, says Thaddeus Sory
According to him, the public’s trust forms the foundation of the judiciary’s legitimacy.
“The Constitution says justice emanates from the people. So the people have a certain expectation of you,” he said.
Mr. Sory warned that when a Chief Justice contradicts her own judicial rulings by benefiting from privileges she has previously ruled against, it undermines the integrity of the justice system.
“If the Chief Justice gets drunk whilst in office, that’s a stated misbehavior. If we find out that she has passed a number of decisions which say that Article 71 office holders are not entitled to have their family members benefit, but she can benefit from it under the excuse that her appointment letter, written by her subordinate, says so—that amounts to misbehaviour,” he fired.
He argued that such conduct erodes public confidence.
“If your Chief Justice can decide that I will take money that I know I don’t have the right to, with the weirdest excuse that it was given to me by somebody who works under me—what do you think the ordinary man will think?” he asked.
The lawyer emphasised that standards of judicial conduct must reflect public morality, not insider sympathies.
“We should make all of those people lay people,” he said, referring to the composition of disciplinary committees.
“Because the ordinary person who sits down there says, if the Chief Justice can do this, how do I trust the system?”
He explained that while the Constitution provides broad guidance, the committee established to investigate judicial misconduct must interpret “stated misbehaviour” through the lens of societal expectations.
“They could say that under this particular situation, these amounts that were spent for a plane ticket for your husband and your daughter—when there are district courts without standing fans and broken chairs—amount to misbehaviour,” he said.
Sory contrasted such conduct with the case of former Electoral Commission Chair, Charlotte Osei, arguing that her removal reflected a troubling inversion of values.
Read also: You can’t codify every wrong – Thaddeus Sory says leave misconduct judgments to committees
“Her crime was that she saved Ghana GH¢15 million,” he said. “She canceled a contract because there was no value for money. Procurement came and testified there was no breach. Yet she was removed. If that is what society wants, so be it.”
He maintained that judges should not be exempt from scrutiny by ordinary citizens.
“Those involved in the justice system judge ordinary men. If it affects us, let them also judge us,” he declared.
On concerns that such a process could be abused, he dismissed fears of unpredictability.
“It has predictability. You now put me in an official position, and the public sees that the head of the institution which should ensure justice is reversing justice—the public will tell you they don’t like that,” he said.
He concluded that public confidence, not internal privilege, is the ultimate standard.
“Everybody is accountable to the society. If they say they don’t like your style, you are too gentle—so be it,” he added.