International Federation of Women Lawyers, Ghana (FIDA Ghana), has petitioned the offices of the Chief Justice over the divorce case of Richard Nii Armah Quaye (RNAQ) and ex-wife Joana Quaye.
The group expressed its displeasure with expressions of the judge’s expressions in the case and explained the implications of the decision on justice delivery and family relations in Ghana.
They condemned the comments of the judge in the RNAQ divorce case and petitioned the CJ for the training of judges in matrimonial and gender sensitive cases.
Parts of the FIDA Ghana petition read, “Our concern lies in aspects of the reasoning and language employed in the judgment which diminish the dignity of women before the courts and weaken public confidence in the fairness, neutrality and sensitivity of judicial reasoning in family law matters, in addition to being a complete departure from recognised principles governing distribution of marital property.
They further added, “In particular, the reference to the Petitioner as ‘physically… attractive’ and ‘capable of remarrying anytime she felt like,’ in the context of deciding financial relief to be granted her, is, with respect, offensive and deeply troubling. Such commentary has no place in the legal analysis. Instead, it suggests that a woman’s entitlement to justice may be weighed against stereotypes about her appearance, desirability, or remarriage prospects. That implication is incompatible with the dignity of litigants and with the objectivity expected of judicial determinations”.
We are equally alarmed by the Judge’s assertion that “marriage is not an investment” and the characterisation of the Petitioner’s financial claim as “ridiculous”. A court is, of course, entitled to reject or reduce claims not supported by law or evidence. However, the language used in doing so should remain measured, relevant, and restrained. More importantly, any approach to financial relief on divorce must take proper account of the reality that women’s contributions to marriage are often not only direct and monetary, but more indirect, domestic, emotional, managerial, and developmental. To dismiss or diminish this reality risks sending a message that the invisible labour of women has little legal value.
We are particularly troubled by the statement that financial relief should operate “as a way of dissuading these frequent divorces.” With respect, courts do not exist to deter people from seeking lawful relief when a marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. The judicial task is to apply the law fairly to the facts before it, not to regulate marital decisions through discouraging language or deterrent reasoning. Once such reasoning enters a judgment, it creates the impression that family law remedies are being shaped by the moral standards of the judge rather than established legal principles. Be that as it may, it is pertinent to state that Justice Dorgu’s rationale for the decision he made – “to dissuade frequent divorces” – rather has the tendency to discourage persons from contracting marriage as years of labour, affection and dedication to a spouse may be flushed down the drain by the stroke of the pen wielding judicial power.
The judgment itself refers to the Respondent’s earning capacity and “numerous companies,” yet orders GH¢5,000.00 monthly maintenance for three minor children while also employing language that appears to devalue the Petitioner’s position and contributions. We are careful not to invite Your Lordship to sit on appeal over the merits of the orders. However, we respectfully submit that the reasoning surrounding those orders matters greatly, because it shapes both public confidence and the future climate in which women seek justice”.
READ THE FULL PETITION OF FIDA GHANA BELOW
ATTN: JUSTICE PAUL JUSTICE BAFFOE BONNIE
Dear Sir,
Re: MRS. JOANA QUAYE v. RICHARD NII ARMAH QUAYE (SUIT NO. DM/0569/2021)
“PETITION FOR PROPER EDUCATION OF JUDGES ON ADJUDICATION OF MATRIMONIAL AND GENDER-SENSITIVE MATTERS INCLUDING DISTRIBUTION OF MARITAL PROPERTY
We write on behalf of the International Federation of Women Lawyers, Ghana (FIDA Ghana), an organisation duly registered under the laws of the Republic of Ghana and devoted to the promotion, protection, and advancement of the rights of women and children, and to the strengthening of access to justice in Ghana.
We respectfully bring to Your Lordship’s attention grave concerns arising from aspects of the judgment delivered on 20th January, 2026, in the above intituled suit by Justice Justin Dorgu, a recently appointed Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting as an additional High Court Judge. Our concern is not with the authority of the Court to determine the rights of parties before it, nor is it an attempt to interfere with the principle of judicial independence, which we fully respect. Rather, our concern lies in aspects of the reasoning and language employed in the judgment which diminish the dignity of women before the courts and weaken public confidence in the fairness, neutrality and sensitivity of judicial reasoning in family law matters, in addition to being a complete departure from recognised principles governing distribution of marital property.
For many women, the family court is not merely a forum of litigation. It is the place they come to when a marriage has broken down, when children must be protected, when resources are unequal, and when the law becomes their last refuge. In such circumstances, the language and reasoning of the court matter deeply. It is not enough that justice be done. The reasoning by which justice is expressed must affirm the dignity, equality, and humanity of those who stand before the court.
It is in this light that we express complete disapproval for passages in the judgment which introduced considerations unrelated to the legal issues for determination. In particular, the reference to the Petitioner as “physically… attractive” and “capable of remarrying anytime she felt like,” in the context of deciding financial relief to be granted her, is, with respect, offensive and deeply troubling. Such commentary has no place in the legal analysis. Instead, it suggests that a woman’s entitlement to justice may be weighed against stereotypes about her appearance, desirability, or remarriage prospects. That implication is incompatible with the dignity of litigants and with the objectivity expected of judicial determinations.
We are equally alarmed by the Judge’s assertion that “marriage is not an investment” and the characterisation of the Petitioner’s financial claim as “ridiculous”. A court is, of course, entitled to reject or reduce claims not supported by law or evidence. However, the language used in doing so should remain measured, relevant, and restrained. More importantly, any approach to financial relief on divorce must take proper account of the reality that women’s contributions to marriage are often not only direct and monetary, but more indirect, domestic, emotional, managerial, and developmental. To dismiss or diminish this reality risks sending a message that the invisible labour of women has little legal value.
We are particularly troubled by the statement that financial relief should operate “as a way of dissuading these frequent divorces.” With respect, courts do not exist to deter people from seeking lawful relief when a marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. The judicial task is to apply the law fairly to the facts before it, not to regulate marital decisions through discouraging language or deterrent reasoning. Once such reasoning enters a judgment, it creates the impression that family law remedies are being shaped by the moral standards of the judge rather than established legal principles. Be that as it may, it is pertinent to state that Justice Dorgu’s rationale for the decision he made – “to dissuade frequent divorces” – rather has the tendency to discourage persons from contracting marriage as years of labour, affection and dedication to a spouse may be flushed down the drain by the stroke of the pen wielding judicial power.
The difficulty does not end with the language of deterrence. It becomes even more pronounced when the judgment is read as a whole. The judgment itself refers to the Respondent’s earning capacity and “numerous companies,” yet orders GH¢5,000.00 monthly maintenance for three minor children while also employing language that appears to devalue the Petitioner’s position and contributions. We are careful not to invite Your Lordship to sit on appeal over the merits of the orders. However, we respectfully submit that the reasoning surrounding those orders matters greatly, because it shapes both public confidence and the future climate in which women seek justice.
Our dismay is heightened by the apparent deviation of the Judge from the constitutional and jurisprudential framework governing spousal property distribution in Ghana. Article 22 of the Constitution protects equal access of spouses to property jointly acquired during marriage and enjoins equitable distribution of all property jointly acquired during marriage upon dissolution. In the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Amma Owusu Sarpong v. Kojo Owusu Sarpong J4/77/2023 delivered on 17th December, 2025, the Court reaffirmed that Article 22 governs the distribution of spousal property; that both direct and indirect contributions, including non-financial and supervisory roles, must be examined; and that equitable distribution requires a contextual, evidence-based inquiry rather than stereotype, abstraction, or broad generalisation. For the learned judge to ignore this recent decision of the Supreme Court and rest his decision on offensive considerations unknown to the law, as referred to above, depicts a worrying ignorance of principles and process for adjudication of matrimonial and gender-sensitive causes. Hence, the urgent call we hereby make for serious education of some members of the Judiciary on such cases.
FIDA Ghana is of the respectful view that, being a court of first instance, the High Court was constitutionally bound to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court on questions of law. Article 129(3) of the 1992 Constitution provides that the Supreme Court is the final court of appeal and that all other courts are bound to follow its decisions on questions of law. In matrimonial causes, that duty necessarily includes fidelity to the interpretive framework established under Article 22 and to the principles articulated in the relevant decisions of the Supreme Court, including its most recent – Amma Owusu Sarpong v. Kojo Owusu Sarpong.
These concerns are not abstract. FIDA Ghana also considers it important to emphasise the wider public implications of offensive judicial language in family law matters. What is said in courtrooms does not remain in courtrooms. Women and children read these judgments. Lawyers cite them. Families discuss them. They become part of the social vocabulary through which marriage, separation, property, and worth are understood. A judgment that appears to suggest that a woman’s dignity may be weighed against her appearance or her perceived prospects of remarriage does more than affect one litigant. It risks discouraging many others from approaching the courts at all.
The wider effect is no longer theoretical. The public response to this judgment has already demonstrated it. Since its circulation, the judgment has attracted significant public attention and generated widespread discussion in mainstream and social media, in professional spaces, in boardrooms, in markets, and in both formal and informal circles. FIDA Ghana has received numerous expressions of opprobrium from women and members of the public seeking clarification on the meaning, effect, and implications of the judgment in question. The level of concern expressed to us reflects not mere curiosity, but genuine consternation and anxiety about the implication of Justice Dorgu’s decision for women who look to the courts for fairness, dignity, and protection.
A major reason for the public distress and disapproval for the decision is the publicly known fact relating to the respondent’s substantial means and lifestyle. Public reports and widely circulated materials, including the respondent’s own declarations have portrayed him as a man of very considerable means, including reports of a private jet acquisition, lavish public celebrations, a large-scale gold-tablet giveaway, and philanthropic food distribution initiatives.
The concerns raised herein are not merely emotional or political. They are measured against the standards the Judiciary has set for itself. The Judicial Service Code of Conduct requires judges to perform their judicial duties without bias or prejudice and cautions against manifestations of bias or prejudice based on attributes, including sex, marital status, and socio-economic status. These are not abstract ideals. They are essential safeguards for litigants, especially in family law disputes where social stereotypes can easily distort legal reasoning. Ghana’s constitutional order rests on the protection of human dignity and equality before the law. Those values must be upheld not only in outcomes, but in the tone, relevance, and discipline of judicial reasoning.
The concerns expressed here do not arise in a vacuum. In a publicly circulated reporting on Gilbert Anyetei v. Sussana Anyetei, a trial court was reported to have remarked: “I sat and watched Susan the ex-wife come in and go out of court. I think she is an exquisite specimen not only of womanhood but of creation itself. Twenty (20) years of her youthful and fruitful life is now wasted.” Remarks of this nature reinforce the perception that women involved in matrimonial proceedings may be appraised through the lens of appearance, gender stereotype and sentiment rather than through disciplined legal reasoning alone.
As stated before, this petition is not intended to interfere with or prejudge the merits of the reported pending appeal. FIDA Ghana nevertheless notes the appeal with keen institutional interest, because the issues raised in the judgment go beyond one family and bear directly on public confidence, gender equality, child welfare, security of the family as a unit of society and the future development of family law jurisprudence in Ghana.
It is in these circumstances that we respectfully invite Your Lordship to consider such administrative, educational, or other appropriate measures as may reinforce gender-sensitive adjudication in matrimonial matters. We invite reflection on the need to ensure that the process of adjudication of matrimonial and gender-sensitive causes, including judicial commentary, remains focus strictly on the issues for determination and are consistent with Article 22 and other laws of Ghana, established Supreme Court jurisprudence, and the constitutional values of dignity, fairness, equality, and restraint.
FIDA Ghana reaffirms its respect for the institution of the Judiciary and the shared national project of building a justice system that is not only independent, but also humane, inclusive, and responsive to the lived realities of women and children. Our purpose is not to diminish the authority of the Court, but to urge continued vigilance so that judicial reasoning, especially in family law matters, affirms rather than diminishes the dignity of those who come before it.
We trust that urgent consideration would be given to the issues raised herein. For ease of reference, we attach the judgment and the supporting reports and materials cited in this petition.
Respectfully submitted,
………………………
Gloria Ofori-Boadu
President
For and on behalf of FIDA-Ghana
encl: Judgment dated 20th January, 2026”
