The Member of Parliament for Madina, Francis-Xavier Kojo Sosu, has questioned the Ghana Bar Association’s (GBA) consistency in commenting on national issues, particularly matters concerning the Judiciary and the administration of justice.
Mr Sosu, who serves as Deputy Ranking Member of Parliament’s Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee and is also a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said the Association risks undermining its credibility through what he described as an inconsistent approach to national issues.
The lawyer and legislator said his assessment is informed by his long-standing association with the legal profession, noting that he had been a member in good standing of the GBA for about 15 to 16 years.
According to him, the Association has not always demonstrated the same level of advocacy when matters directly affecting the interests and welfare of lawyers arise.
“The GBA loses credibility each time it speaks on national matters because of its apparent inconsistency,” Mr Sosu stated.
He questioned why the Association appeared to be more visible in certain administrative matters, including the collection of dues and the facilitation of licence renewals through its online portal.
Mr Sosu also raised questions about the institutional responsibility for the regulation of legal practitioners, pointing to the General Legal Council (GLC) as the body with the statutory mandate in that area.
“I have rarely seen the Association show the same energy when the interests of lawyers are at stake,” he said.
“Its most visible functions seem to be collecting dues and facilitating licence renewals through its portal, even though that responsibility lies with the GLC.”
The Madina MP’s comments come against the backdrop of public debate over recent developments involving the Judiciary and the Chief Justice.
Mr Sosu challenged the basis of the GBA’s criticism of the Chief Justice over his public expression of views, arguing that the Chief Justice, like other citizens, is entitled to constitutional rights.
“What is the basis for condemning the Chief Justice for expressing his views within the bounds of his constitutional rights?” he questioned.
He also challenged the Association’s position regarding actions taken by the Judiciary in support of the Chief Justice.
“And on what basis does the GBA question actions taken by the Judiciary in support of the Chief Justice?” he asked.
Beyond the immediate dispute, Mr Sosu questioned whether the GBA had adequately considered the scope and limits of its institutional role before taking positions on matters involving the Judiciary and national governance.
He called for greater clarity on the Association’s mandate, particularly when it intervenes in issues with constitutional or institutional implications.
“Does the GBA fully understand its duties and the limits of its role? I have serious doubts,” he stated.
Mr Sosu maintained that the Association’s interventions in national affairs should be guided by consistency and a clear understanding of its institutional responsibilities.
He ultimately urged the GBA to reconsider what he views as its approach to politically sensitive national issues.
“Please, give us a break,” he concluded.
By 1960news.com
