Austin Kwabena Brako-Powers, a private legal practitioner, has told the Attorney-General, Dr Dominic Ayine, that his description of the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) as being politically biased is unfair and mischievous.
According to the lawyer, it is mischievous to accuse the Association of political bias because they were silent under different governments.
He noted that the GBA remained quiet during President Mahama’s first term in the removal of Lauretta Lamptey as CHRAJ head, and also under Akufo-Addo in the removal of Charlotte Osei as Electoral Commission Chair.
Speaking on 3FM’s Sunrise programme on 16 September, Austin Kwabena Brako-Powers stated, “The GBA remained conspicuously quiet under President Mahama during Lauretta Lamptey’s removal, and equally silent under President Akufo-Addo during Charlotte Osei’s removal”.
“The honest question we have to ask ourselves is, what changed?” he asked.
He added, “All three cases concerned the independence of constitutional bodies. Yet the Bar found its voice only in relation to the third petition, which happened to align with the opposition.”
“For this reason, if the GBA is now speaking out, it would be unfair, even mischievous to accuse it of political bias,” he said.
Mr Brako-Powers asserted that the GBA’s renewed public stance should be welcomed, “Today, more than ever, we need the GBA at its best. Its current leadership should be encouraged to defend constitutional governance and support national development.”
His comments come after Dr Dominic Ayine, the Attorney General and Minister for Justice, has told the members of the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) to defend the rule of law and not align themselves with politics.
The Attorney General noted that the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) has been selective in speaking out on certain matters but silent on other matters.
Speaking at the Ghana Bar Association’s Annual Conference in Wa on Monday, September 15, in reference to the removal of the former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, Dr Ayine stated, “In 2015, an Article 146 petition was received by the Chief Justice in relation to the removal of CHRAJ boss, Madam Lauretta Lamptey. The bar failed to speak out in the process. In the run-up to the 2016 elections, the then-opposition NPP engaged the EC in court battles over the voter identification system. This gave rise to the Abu Ramadan line of cases.
“Immediately upon assuming office in 2017, an Article 146 petition was filed for the removal of the EC chairperson, Charlotte Osei, and her deputies from office. The Bar saw no basis to speak up about the compliance with due process”.
He added, “But in recent times, the bar found its voice when a petition based on the same constitutionally defined procedures was brought in respect of the removal of the office of the former chief justice, Gertrude Torkornoo. The honest question we have to ask ourselves is what changed?
“The three petitions mentioned touch on three constitutional bodies critical to the sustenance of our democracy. Their independence has been guaranteed by the Constitution. The three occupants were all women of significant repute and members of our noble profession,” he said.
According to the Attorney General, all three committees established under Article 146 of the Constitution followed due process, but the GBA only found its voice in relation to the third petition.
Dr Ayine argued, “The three committees established pursuant to Article 146 complied with the constitutional procedure to the letter, and yet the Bar found its voice only in relation to the third petition. Consciously, the voice of the Bar amplified the voice of the opposition”.
“The lawyer in politics must be a voice of reason, moderation, and constitutionalism. The Bar must speak up, not to please government or opposition parties, but to defend the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, and the rights of the citizens,” he stated.