A fresh wave of controversy has erupted in the high-profile divorce case involving businessman Richard Nii Armah Quaye (RNAQ), as his former wife, Joana Quaye, formally petitions the Chief Justice over what she describes as “gross misconduct” by the trial judge.
At the center of the dispute is Justice Justin Dorgu, who delivered Final Orders in the case on January 20, 2026, only for the full written judgment to surface three months later, on April 20, 2026.
Joana Quaye is now alleging that the timing was not just irregular, but calculated.
“A Judgment After the Deadline?”
According to court records, the Final Orders—covering property division, child custody, and maintenance—were issued in January, effectively triggering the three-month window for appeal. However, the detailed reasoning behind those orders, contained in the full judgment, was not filed or made available until April 20, when the appeal window expired a day before on April 19.
For Joana Quaye, this raises a troubling question: did the judge do this deliberately to deny her a fair opportunity to appeal?
If her new lawyers, Dame & Partners, not managed to promptly file an appeal and waited for the full judgment, would her right to appeal not have been defeated?
In her petition to the Judicial Council of Ghana and the Chief Justice, she argues that the judge’s actions effectively “ambushed” her legal rights.
She contends that Justice Dorgu issued what he described as the “Conclusion” of his judgment before actually writing the full decision—then released the reasoning only after the deadline for appeal had lapsed. Effectively, the judge “worked his way back” after writing the conclusions and filing same.
Allegations of Bias and Misconduct
Joana Quaye says the sequence of events suggests more than just procedural delay. In her petition, she questions how a judge could finalize conclusions in a case affecting her constitutional and spousal rights before going back to work on the legal reasoning behind them, and release same after her right to an appeal had elapsed.
To her, this points to a predetermined outcome.
She further accuses the judge of “serialising” his judgment in a manner that undermined her right to justice, insisting that the process has resulted in what she calls “two versions” of the court’s decision—one she was forced to respond to without full context, and another revealed too late to challenge.
Describing the situation as “unfair” and “deeply troubling,” she warns that such conduct risks bringing Ghana’s judiciary into disrepute.
Call for Investigation
Joana Quaye is now demanding a full-scale inquiry into Justice Dorgu’s conduct, urging the Chief Justice and relevant authorities to investigate whether the delayed release of the judgment amounts to judicial misconduct.
She argues that the issue goes beyond her personal case, warning that if left unchecked, such practices could endanger the rights of other litigants—particularly women and vulnerable individuals navigating the justice system.
Growing Public Scrutiny
The unfolding dispute has intensified public scrutiny around judicial processes, especially regarding transparency, fairness, and the right to appeal.
As the petition awaits action, the case is fast becoming a flashpoint in the broader conversation about accountability within Ghana’s legal system.