What We Know So far: Petition filed to President Mahama seeking removal of Ag Chief Justice

1 Rivalry Between GBA and GLS

The petition arises from the ongoing rivalry between the Ghana Bar Association, the sole recognised professional body for lawyers, and the recently established Ghana Law Society, which seeks to challenge that monopoly. The GLS argues that lawyers deserve “freedom of association” and more responsive professional representation.

ADVERTISEMENT

On September 24, 2025, the GLS filed a lawsuit at the Supreme Court to “demonopolize” the GBA and gain recognition as a legitimate professional body. The following day, September 25, the Acting Chief Justice met with GLS representatives, a meeting that has since become the centrepiece of the current petition.

2 Breach of Judicial Propriety and Sub Judice

The petitioner argues that by meeting with GLS representatives while their lawsuit was pending, the Acting Chief Justice breached the principle of sub judice, which prohibits judges from engaging with litigants on active cases. During that meeting, the Acting Chief Justice reportedly stated, “…all that we are interested in at the GLC is that you possess our license.”

Mr Justice Paul claims this statement showed partiality toward the GLS, particularly since the Chief Justice also chairs the General Legal Council (GLC), the body responsible for licensing lawyers in Ghana. He argues that the use of “our license” underscores a conflict of interest and a prejudgment of a matter still before the Supreme Court.

The petition also cites violations of:

• Ghana’s Judicial Code of Conduct
• The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002), specifically Value 1: Independence, which stresses that judicial independence is “a prerequisite to the rule of law and the fundamental guarantee for fair trial.”

According to the petitioner, the Acting Chief Justice’s actions have eroded public confidence in the judiciary, warranting his removal under Article 146 for “stated misbehaviour.”

3 A Courtesy Call, Not Misconduct

In response, defenders of the Acting Chief Justice, including a former director of the Ghana Law School, argue that the petition misinterprets both the facts and the law. They insist that the meeting with the GLS was merely a courtesy call, not a judicial act, and therefore outside the scope of “stated misbehaviour.”

They assert that the Acting Chief Justice’s remarks were neutral and procedural advice, encouraging the GLS to follow due process by applying to the General Legal Council for licensing. The defence also contends that expanding Article 146 to include such routine, non-judicial interactions would set a “dangerous and absurd precedent.”

Moreover, they describe the petition as “wholly unmeritorious,” arguing that it fails to meet the constitutional threshold for the removal of a superior court judge.

4 Misbehaviour or Misinterpretation?

At the heart of the dispute is a fundamental disagreement over interpretation. The petitioner views the Acting Chief Justice’s remarks as evidence of bias and judicial impropriety. The defence, however, sees them as harmless administrative guidance.