I Fired Judge’s Unlawful Conduct, Not His Person – Afenyo-Markin Responds

Minority Leader Osahen Afenyo-Markin has defended his public criticism of the Circuit Court 9 judge presiding over the Abronye DC case, insisting that questioning a judge’s pattern of unprofessional conduct does not amount to a personal attack.

“Questioning the excesses of a Judge’s pattern of conduct does not amount to an attack on his person…It is both ethical and within my constitutional rights to call out a Judge who has no respect for the law and the rights of citizens. There is a pattern in the conduct of the Circuit Court 9 Judge in political cases that go before him. I cannot, in good conscience, respect a Judge who has no respect for the law,” the senior lawyer and Parliamentarian for the Effutu Constituency clarified on Tuesday.

He continued: “The Minority Caucus in Parliament will not shut its eyes to the conduct of this Judge. A series of actions will be taken in Parliament, and the appropriate constitutional steps will be taken to rebuke him. Our law Lords are not above the law.”

Afenyo-Markin defended his Sunday criticism, barely 24 hours after the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) had issued a statement condemning his criticisms, describing them as “unpalatable, unbecoming and unprofessional.”

At a press conference last Sunday, the Minority Leader had declared he would continue to “disrespect” the judge until he “upholds the law,” while questioning the magistrate’s competence and daring the court to cite him for contempt.

But clarifying his position on Tuesday, the Minority Leader doubled down, arguing that the judge’s refusal to release his ruling six days after remanding Abronye, officially known as Kwame Baffoe, the Bono Regional Chairman of the NPP, on May 13 constitutes unlawful conduct that demands public rebuke.

“Is it ethical for the Circuit Court 9 Judge to refuse to release his ruling to Abronye’s lawyers after six days? What is the judge afraid of? Is he still editing? Or is he having technical hitches? Possibly the computer in the courtroom has crashed?” Afenyo-Markin charged.

He added: “Yesterday, the Registrar told Abronye’s lawyers the record book was still with the court. This morning, the story is that the court is sitting. Can the Chief Justice or the Judicial Secretary intervene? Will a condemnation of such unprofessional conduct amount to an attack on a judge?”

The Minority Leader explained further: “Remand order was made 13th May, 2026. Today is 19th May, 2026. Yesterday, the Registrar told Abronye’s lawyers the record book was still with the court. This morning, the story is that the court is sitting. Can the Chief Justice or the Judicial Secretary intervene in this? Can the GBA treat this as an urgent matter and appeal to the Circuit Court 9 Judge to release his ruling? Will a condemnation of such unprofessional conduct amount to an attack on a Judge?”

Mr. Afenyo-Markin revealed that the Minority Caucus in Parliament will take “a series of actions” and “the appropriate constitutional steps” to rebuke the judge, urging the Chief Justice to “keep an eye” on the Circuit Court 9 judge and “prevail upon him to uphold the ethos of his judicial robe and wig.”

GBA Responds

But GBA Spokesperson Saviour Kudze rejected the Minority Leader’s defence, insisting that if Mr. Afenyo-Markin believed the judge had acted outside the law, “the appellate system is not there for fun.”

“He shouldn’t go to the press, not at all,” Mr. Kudze said. “As a lawyer, if his complaint is that a judge has acted in a way not within the ambit of the law, this is not the way to go, especially for somebody like him—a senior lawyer, Minority Leader, and a chief. Is this the kind of example he wants to give his constituents?”

The GBA accused the Minority Leader of violating professional ethics by questioning the judge’s competence and qualifications in public.

The controversy continues to divide legal opinion as Abronye DC remains in custody over alleged misinformation and offensive public statements, with his lawyers yet to secure the judge’s written ruling six days after the remand order.