Constitutional lawyer, George Bernard Shaw, has strongly criticised comments made by Minority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, describing them as scandalous and dangerous to the independence of the judiciary in Ghana.
Speaking in an interview, the legal practitioner expressed concern over what he described as increasing public attacks on judges, warning that such conduct undermines confidence in the administration of justice.
He argued that anyone dissatisfied with a court ruling must follow established legal procedures rather than publicly attacking judicial officers.
“If you disagree with the judgment of a court, there are processes and avenues open for redress… because if you come openly to castigate and rebuke the judge in that way, you are bringing the whole administration of justice into disrepute,” he stated.
Mr. Shaw further called on the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) to take a firm stance on the matter, including considering contempt proceedings where necessary, in order to protect the integrity of the judiciary.
He urged the legal fraternity to act decisively if the reported comments attributed to the Minority Leader were accurate, stressing that silence from the Bar could weaken public trust in the legal system.
“If the tape and the things that he said about the judge were truly done, then yes, the GBA should come down hard,” he said, adding that the Bar must not be seen as politically biased.
The lawyer also referenced a personal experience involving the same Circuit Court judge, explaining that although he disagreed with a ruling in a recent bail application, he pursued redress through proper legal channels rather than public criticism.
“I proceeded straightaway to the Human Rights Court and made another application, and then my client is now free on bail,” he noted.
Mr. Shaw cautioned that the Ghana Bar Association must remain independent and uphold ethical standards, warning against any perception that it serves partisan interests.
He concluded that safeguarding judicial independence requires discipline from both legal practitioners and political actors, especially in how court decisions are discussed in the public space.
