Private legal practitioner Thaddeus Sory has urged lawyers to rely on established legal procedures to challenge judicial decisions rather than resorting to media campaigns, public pressure or boycotts.

Sory said disagreements with decisions by judges or the Chief Justice should first be addressed through the appropriate judicial and legal channels, warning that public commentary could inflame tensions without resolving the underlying issues.

His comments come amid controversy over a directive by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie authorising selected High Court judges to sit during the legal vacation.

Lawyers representing former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and former National Food Buffer Stock Company Chief Executive Officer Hanan Abdul-Wahab have challenged the arrangement and asked for their cases to be deferred until October, when the new legal year begins.

Speaking on the KSM Show on Monday, 17 August, Sory said lawyers who disagreed with decisions affecting their cases had several legal avenues available to them.

He said lawyers with concerns about the Chief Justice’s directive could first engage the judicial system and raise their objections before the judge handling the matter.

“If you are not happy with the Chief Justice’s decision, you can actually go and meet up with the Chief Justice and say, look, as parties, we want to come and discuss this directive,” he said.

Sory said where a lawyer believed a judge had acted unfairly, the decision could be challenged through the appropriate legal processes, including an appeal or other proceedings where applicable.

“The judge is going to write the ruling. You can challenge it,” he said.

He questioned the practice of making allegations of political interference or judicial bias before exhausting available legal remedies.

“Why don’t we engage the system in the appropriate way?” he asked.

According to Mr Sory, lawyers should distinguish between legitimate legal challenges and attempts to mobilise public opinion against judicial decisions.

He cautioned that public statements on sensitive court matters could heighten emotions and make it more difficult to resolve the underlying dispute.

“Maybe the idea is to just inflame passions to get people to think the way they want them to think,” he said.

Sory’s comments come as the legal profession debates the implications of allowing selected High Court judges to hear cases during the legal vacation, a period when courts traditionally operate under different arrangements.

He maintained that lawyers dissatisfied with administrative or judicial decisions should make use of the mechanisms available within the justice system before turning to public campaigns.