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.
Mr Sory said disagreements with decisions by judges or the Chief Justice should first be addressed through the appropriate legal and judicial channels, warning that public commentary could heighten tensions without resolving the issues at stake.
His comments come amid controversy over a decision by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie to allow 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 opposed 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 had several legal avenues available to them.
He urged lawyers with concerns about the directive to first engage the judicial system and present their objections to the judge handling the case.
According to him, lawyers who believe a judge has acted unfairly can challenge the decision through the appropriate legal processes rather than turning immediately to the media.
He said such decisions could also be challenged through appeals or other legal proceedings where applicable.
“The judge is going to write the ruling. You can challenge it,” he said.
Mr Sory also questioned the practice of alleging political interference or bias before available legal remedies had been exhausted.
He said lawyers who disagreed with the Chief Justice’s decision could engage him directly to discuss their concerns.
“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 members of the legal profession to engage the judicial system through the appropriate channels before concluding that an administrative decision was politically motivated.
“Why don’t we engage the system in the appropriate way?” he asked.
Mr Sory further cautioned that public statements on sensitive court matters could 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.
