Attack on CJ: GBA Acts with ‘Two Faces’ on National Issues— Ricky Kasise

Columnist and political activist Kasise Ricky Peprah has accused the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) of applying double standards in its defence of constitutionalism, alleging that the Association’s posture changes depending on which political tradition is in power.

In a strongly worded opinion article, Mr Peprah questioned what he described as the GBA’s apparent “about-face” on constitutional matters, arguing that the legal profession must apply the same standards to all governments and institutions regardless of their political affiliation.

“The Constitution cannot be a convenient weapon today and an embarrassing inheritance tomorrow,” he stated.

According to him, the GBA’s current posture on constitutional issues requires historical scrutiny, particularly in relation to the Association’s decision not to participate in the Consultative Assembly that prepared the draft of the 1992 Constitution.

Mr Peprah said he was an undergraduate at the time and personally visited the chambers of the Consultative Assembly to observe its proceedings.

“I heard, firsthand, the condescension with which the Ghana Bar Association treated the process. I heard the denigration of the entire exercise. I witnessed an attitude that seemed to regard the Assembly and its work with something approaching contempt,” he claimed.

“I do not rely on hearsay. I was there. I listened,” he added.

He acknowledged that the GBA was within its rights to boycott the process and criticise the political circumstances under which the Constitution was being developed.

“But a boycott is not authorship,” he argued, stressing that the 1992 Constitution ultimately belongs to the Ghanaian people and not to the GBA, the judiciary, political parties or the legal profession.

Mr Peprah’s comments come amid renewed public debate over the Ghana Bar Association’s interventions in constitutional and governance matters, particularly its criticism of actions and policies of governments and public institutions.

He cautioned the Association against allowing constitutional vigilance to become a vehicle for partisan political opposition.

“The Bar has every right, indeed a duty, to challenge executive overreach. But constitutional vigilance must not become a euphemism for political hostility,” he said.

He insisted that the GBA must apply a consistent standard irrespective of the political party in government.

“When a conservative government violates the Constitution, condemn it. When a progressive government violates the Constitution, condemn it,” he stated.

“When a government pursues a legitimate social transformation, scrutinise the policy without caricaturing it. When a policy is politically disagreeable but constitutionally permissible, say so honestly.”

Mr Peprah argued that true independence of the legal profession should be demonstrated by how consistently it scrutinises political power and other institutions.

“Independence is not measured by the thunder of press conferences, the solemnity of conference speeches or the frequency with which the phrase ‘rule of law’ is invoked,” he said.

“It is measured by the standards one applies when the political winds change.”

He further challenged the GBA to scrutinise not only executive conduct but also the judiciary and the legal profession itself.

“A Bar that condemns executive overreach must also be prepared to scrutinise judicial overreach,” he argued.

“A Bar that defends institutional independence must not become an apologist for institutional privilege.”
While acknowledging the GBA’s contributions to Ghana’s legal and democratic development,

Mr Peprah said the Association should not consider itself immune from public scrutiny.

“The GBA has made important contributions to Ghana’s legal and democratic life. Those contributions deserve recognition. But no institution, however eminent, is entitled to immunity from scrutiny,” he stated.

He challenged the Association to explain its historical position on the Consultative Assembly if it believes its boycott was justified.

“If the Association believes its earlier position was justified, let it explain why. If it believes the boycott was a mistake, let it say so,” he said.

Mr Peprah also questioned whether the GBA’s current interventions were driven purely by constitutional principles or, in some instances, by opposition to particular political arrangements.

“Is the GBA defending constitutionalism, or defending a preferred political arrangement under the cover of constitutionalism?” he asked.

He stressed that his criticism was not an attack on the legal profession but a call for accountability and consistency from an institution that regularly demands accountability from public authorities.

“Ghana does not need a Bar that is perpetually at war with governments it dislikes and ceremonially deferential to governments it favours,” he stated.

“Ghana needs a Bar that is fearless before power, regardless of the colour of the government; intellectually honest about its own history; and sufficiently humble to recognise that the Constitution it brandishes belongs to the people.”

Mr Peprah concluded that the GBA has the right to disagree with governments, challenge their policies and pursue legal action where necessary, but insisted that such interventions must be grounded in consistent constitutional principles.

“Constitutionalism is not a costume one wears when the political wind is favourable,” he said.