J. A. Sarbah, a familiar purveyor of political falsehoods and opinions routinely drowned in grandiose enchantments, has assembled another elaborate prosecution of the Ghana Law Society. It comes furnished with villains, conspirators, judicial capture and political infiltration, turning an ordinary constitutional disagreement among lawyers into yet another breathless prophecy about the fall of the Republic.
Unfortunately, the Constitution is less excitable.
Get more exclusive breaking news updates on our WhatsApp channel .
Article 21(1)(e) says exactly:
“freedom of association, which shall include freedom to form or join trade unions or other associations, national or international, for the protection of their interest;”
That is the Constitution, not partisan invention. And I defend that freedom without qualification.
Indeed, I find the emergence of another serious professional association of lawyers revolutionary. The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) is an important institution. But professional importance does not mature into hereditary entitlement. The Bar is not a chieftaincy stool.
Lawyers may associate, disagree and form alternative professional associations.
Pluralism is not capture.
The GBA enjoys constitutionally specified representation on key public bodies, which raises the question now before the Supreme Court: should that representation remain exclusive to one voluntary association?
Even the Constitution Review Committee has approached the wider issue institutionally, recommending that references to specific private associations in Articles 153, 157, 166, 201, 204, 206, 209, 259 and 261 be replaced by neutral formulations and transparent statutory criteria.
That is a constitutional debate.
J. A. Sarbah instead supplies a conspiracy.
The constitutional scholarship soon joins the casualties. Sarbah confidently tells us Article 144 gives the GBA seats on the Judicial Council. It does not. Article 153 does. A minor inconvenience, perhaps, when constructing a constitutional conspiracy. But if you are going to accuse others of plotting to manipulate the Constitution, actually locating the relevant provision seems a reasonable place to begin.
Then there is President Mahama.
In September 2023, while in opposition, Mahama urged NDC lawyers to consider careers on the bench to “balance out” what he alleged was an NPP inclined judiciary.
I dislike the partisan colouring of judges. But lawyers become judges, and the Constitution does not render a lawyer permanently contaminated or unfit for judicial office merely because that lawyer previously belonged to a political party, expressed political opinions or associated with politicians. Painfully for Sarbah’s argument, what matters ultimately is the integrity with which judicial office is exercised: independence, competence, judicial temperament and fidelity to the Constitution.
Otherwise, we should investigate the political ancestry, friendships, spouses and dinner companions of every prospective judge.
And that absurdity brings us conveniently to the GBA itself.
Its current President, Efua Ghartey, is married to Joe Ghartey. Joe Ghartey is not some anonymous NPP sympathiser. He is a longstanding NPP politician who served as Attorney General and Minister for Justice under President Kufuor and later served in other high political offices. Efua and Joe Ghartey also cofounded their law firm.
Does that make Efua Ghartey an NPP operative?
Absolutely not.
That is precisely the point.
Marriage is not political conscription.
Yet apply Sarbah’s political genealogy test consistently and see how quickly his argument consumes itself.
If Dafeamekpor’s NDC identity automatically converts GLS into an “NDC Bar”, what does marriage to a former NPP Attorney General make the GBA President?
Nothing.
Because the premise itself is foolish.
Judge people and institutions by conduct.
And yes, the GBA’s recent conduct has attracted legitimate questions. Its extraordinarily forceful intervention in the Torkornoo matter provoked criticism, with Attorney General Dominic Ayine subsequently accusing the Association of selective advocacy, an accusation Efua Ghartey rejected. The GBA was again publicly accused of selective silence in May 2026 over remarks by Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo Markin concerning a judge, and in August intervened over vacation sittings after petitions from firms including Zoe, Akyea & Co, Dame & Partners and Sam Okudzeto & Associates.
None of this proves the GBA is NPP.
But neither should anybody insult our intelligence by pretending that questioning the GBA is sacrilege while questioning GLS is constitutional vigilance.
There is another cautionary tale.
Former Supreme Court Justice Jones Dotse was once publicly accused of having been the NPP’s Volta Regional Chairman before joining the judiciary.
He denied it categorically in open court and challenged anybody possessing evidence to produce it.
That episode demonstrates precisely why political labelling is dangerous.
Judge the judge by the judging, GLS by what GLS does, the GBA by what the GBA does, and constitutional arguments by the Constitution.
Ghana does not strengthen democracy by replacing one alleged political orthodoxy with another. Nor do we protect judicial independence by constructing political pedigrees for lawyers and declaring them contaminated before they mount the bench.
I will defend the GBA’s freedom to criticise Mahama fiercely, just as I will defend the GLS’s freedom to exist, organise and challenge professional orthodoxy.
That is what constitutionalism looks like when it is not selectively applied.
Competition may even make both organisations better.
Let them compete in scholarship, advocacy, defending lawyers, protecting judicial independence and speaking truth to whichever government occupies Jubilee House.
If the GBA remains the superior institution, professional excellence will establish it.
It does not require monopoly to prove greatness.
The Constitution gave us freedom of association.
Until then, propaganda may manufacture its verdicts. The Supreme Court will deliver the only one that matters.
