ElvisAnokyenews Latest News Portal
Deputy Attorney General, Justice Srem Sai has strongly criticized the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) for passing a resolution he believes contradicts established legal principles and Supreme Court rulings.
In an interview on Joy News’ PM Express on Tuesday, April 29, which was monitored by Elvisanokyenews.net, Justice Srem Sai questioned both the legal soundness and constitutional propriety of the GBA’s recent resolution, which calls for the reinstatement of the Chief Justice and the reversal of directives issued by the Acting Chief Justice.
According to him, such actions hold no weight against binding decisions of the Supreme Court. He explained that the law is grounded in principles, not numbers.
“Someone might have prompted that a revolution of 45 people, which is going to be attributed to an attestation of over 100,000, more than 5,000 people should be carefully thought for before it’s even printed on the letterhead of the GBA.
“However, like I’ve always said, law is not a question, it’s not democracy, so that when 10,000 people say this is the law, this is the meaning of the law, and one person said, this is not the meaning of the law, then the 10,000 will win, it doesn’t work that way.” He said.
Justice Srem Sai further explained that the correct interpretation of the law comes through legal reasoning, attention to precedent, and analysis of constitutional texts in the context of decided cases. He warned that disregarding Supreme Court decisions in favor of politically or socially motivated resolutions undermines the legal order.
“Law is quoted by legal reasoning, paying attention, legal precedence, reading texts, and reading them in the light of decided case. There is already a decision on this matter, so to pass a resolution on something which the Supreme Court has already decided and expect that the resolution should take precedence over the binding for decision is one thing that I cannot imagine would happen in an assembly of lawyers.” He said
He also criticized a component of the GBA’s resolution which called on the President to publish a prima facie decision. He argued that such a demand runs counter to constitutional provisions and at least three authoritative court rulings, all of which emphasize the confidentiality of such proceedings.
He warned that if the GBA, as an assembly of legal professionals, could pass a resolution that essentially calls on the President to violate this constitutional confidentiality, then it raises serious concerns about the association’s commitment to the rule of law.
“Secondly, one point in the revolution says that the president should go ahead and publish the prima facie decision. When we all know that the constitution commands that the process be done not in public and there have been at least three decisions confirming that not the petition, not the conversation around it, not the content of the petition, not the process what happened in the proceeding should be made public, so if in the light of this strong constitutional injunction supported decided cases. The GBA, an assembly of lawyers, can actually pass a resolution calling on the president to, as it were, make what the constitution requires to be private public, then again, there’s a problem with that.” He said.
Source: Elvisanokyenews.net
