Private legal practitioner Thaddeus Sory has urged lawyers dissatisfied with judicial decisions to use established legal procedures to challenge them instead of resorting to media campaigns, public pressure or boycotts.
According to him, lawyers who disagree with decisions by judges or the Chief Justice have several legal avenues available to them and should exhaust those options before making public allegations of political interference or bias.
His comments come amid 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 requested that their respective cases be deferred until October, when the new legal year begins.
Speaking on the KSM Show on Monday, August 17, 2026, Mr Sory said lawyers with concerns about the directive should first engage the judicial system and raise their objections before the judge handling their cases.
He said where a lawyer believes a judge has acted unfairly, the decision can be challenged through the appropriate legal processes.
“The judge is going to write the ruling. You can challenge it,” he said.
Mr Sory added that lawyers could also pursue an appeal or other legal proceedings where applicable.
He also encouraged lawyers who disagree with an administrative decision by the Chief Justice to engage directly with the Chief Justice rather than immediately taking their concerns to the media.
“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 questioned why lawyers would resort to allegations of political interference before exhausting available legal remedies.
“Why don’t we engage the system in the appropriate way?” he asked.
Mr Sory cautioned that public commentary on sensitive judicial matters could heighten tensions and inflame public sentiment rather than contribute to resolving the underlying dispute.
“Maybe the idea is to just inflame passions to get people to think the way they want them to think,” he said.
He therefore urged lawyers to use the appropriate legal and judicial channels to resolve disagreements over decisions affecting their cases, rather than relying on public pressure.
