Attorney Maurice Ampaw has harshly criticized former Supreme Court Justice William Atuguba for remarks he made that seemed to contradict a recent Supreme Court decision. Ampaw expressed his unhappiness on his Wontumi TV show, Mmra Ne Abrabo, by calling Justice Atuguba's public remarks unsuitable and unworthy of a retired judge.

A true embarrassment to the bench, you are. "As a judge, you don't speak in public; instead, you support your colleagues," Ampaw said in an interview with TV3, denouncing Justice Atuguba's choice to voice his opinions.

Justice Atuguba cited Article 99(1) of the Constitution during the interview, which gives the High Court jurisdiction over issues pertaining to the legitimacy of parliamentary seats. According to his explanation, "The High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any question whether (a) a person has been validly elected as a member of Parliament or the seat of a member has become vacant." Justice Atuguba maintained that the High Court, not the Supreme Court, should have jurisdiction over the matter at hand, which concerns the vacation of seats of four members of Parliament.


From my perspective, Article 99 addresses the topic of seat leaving in detail. Since the four MPs' seats are being vacated, the High Court, not the Supreme Court, should decide this issue. That's why it's improper to bring this case to the Supreme Court," he said firmly.

However, Ampaw called for the Ghana Bar Association to punish the retired judge, accusing him of gravely violating court decorum with his utterances. The judiciary's authority is undermined by such remarks, Ampaw insisted, adding, "What you are saying is not binding." He called on the Bar Association to respond to what he called Justice Atuguba's malfeasance.

The incident has ignited widespread debate about the role of retired judges in public discourse, particularly on matters involving ongoing legal controversies. Questions about judicial ethics, the boundaries of public commentary, and the impact of such remarks on the judiciary's image remain at the forefront of discussions.