Private legal practitioner Thaddeus Sory has urged lawyers to use established legal procedures to challenge judicial decisions rather than resorting to media campaigns, public pressure or boycotts.
According to him, disagreements with decisions by judges or the Chief Justice should first be addressed through the appropriate legal channels, arguing that public commentary could heighten tensions without resolving the underlying dispute.
His comments come amid an ongoing controversy over a decision by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie to authorise selected High Court judges to sit during the legal vacation.
Lawyers for former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and former National Food Buffer Stock Company Chief Executive Officer Hanan Abdul-Wahab have challenged the arrangement and asked for their cases to be deferred until October, when the new legal year begins.
Speaking on the KSM Show on Monday, August 17, 2026, Mr Sory said lawyers dissatisfied with decisions affecting their cases have several legal options available to them.
He said lawyers with concerns about the directive should first engage the judicial system and present their objections to the judge handling the case.
According to him, a lawyer who believes a judge has acted unfairly can challenge the decision through the appropriate legal processes rather than turning immediately to the media.
He added that lawyers could also challenge decisions through an appeal or other legal proceedings, where appropriate.
“The judge is going to write the ruling. You can challenge it,” he said.
Mr Sory also questioned the practice of making allegations of political interference or bias before available legal remedies have been exhausted.
“If you are not happy with the Chief Justice’s decision, you can actually go and meet up with the Chief Justice and say, look, as parties, we want to come and discuss this directive,” he said.
He urged lawyers to engage the system before concluding that an administrative decision was motivated by political interests.
“Why don’t we engage the system in the appropriate way?” he asked.
According to him, public statements on sensitive court matters can sometimes heighten emotions rather than contribute to resolving the dispute.
“Maybe the idea is to just inflame passions to get people to think the way they want them to think,” he said.
