A: Introduction

 “All professions are conspiracies against the laity.”

George Bernard Shaw, The Doctor’s Dilemma (Floating Press, 2011)

Whether those in the legal profession believe in Shaw’s aphorism as quoted above or not, the fact remains that the public believe we conspire against them - always. We use language they hardly understand. We create rules of procedure that do not mimic ordinary rules of life just to confuse and confound them. We make rules to say they should settle their disputes in public, such as during family meetings, at the chief’s palace, or in open court. But when it comes to us, we hold the proceedings in private.

In the first part of this article published last week, the point was made that it makes for easy appreciation when one contends that holding any form of inquiry or hearing in private is the best thing that came out of the Magna Carta. The assertion that in camera hearings protect the person involved sounds attractive. But the question that needs to be asked is this: Why has the nation that originated the Common Law tradition itself abandoned in camera administrative hearings in favour of public hearings? This second and final part of the article attempts to answer the question posed.

B: Why in camera hearings must be abolished

Many citizens have suffered unjustly under the constitutional and statutory provisions that stipulate in camera hearings. The example of the judges dismissed based on an investigative journalist’s work is well-known and there is no need to recount the details here. The judges were ‘tried’ in secret and ‘convicted’ and dismissed based on the evidence of a witness whose face they could not see.

Similar in camera proceedings provisions in laws passed by Parliament are equally inflicting injustice on citizens. The fact is that a legal or constitutional provision, on its face, might look harmless. In the hands of the just and righteous, it may cause no harm. But in the hands of brutish, corrupt and bitter souls looking for vengeance, such a provision may prove lethal. Unfortunately, of all the good attributes the Creator afforded mankind, the one thing He withheld was the ability to read one’s mind based on the construction on his or her face. Thus, we need to remind ourselves that, generally, men and women are not saints and angels. And as the Court of Appeal once admonished, “it is not safe, in the nature of things human, to erect principles round the personality and character of any particular person.”[1]

Now, let’s consider a typical scenario: A law states that disciplinary proceedings against a person must be held in camera. The qualification and number individuals who are to form the committee to hold the hearing are stated. A person who does not qualify to be a member of that committee decides that he or she will be part of it. The ‘accused’ person complains to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rules its jurisdiction has been properly invoked and it will hear the case. Days later, the Supreme Court changes its mind and says the case raises no issue of constitutional interpretation or enforcement. So, the Supreme Court case ends there.

The ‘accused’ person receives notice to go back to the committee for hearing. Lo! and behold, the alleged unqualified person appears again to sit as a member of the committee. No, cancel that, the person chairs the proceedings of the committee. The story does not end there. The three-member committee eventually balloons to seven! The seven persons deliver the final decision of the three-member committee. They refuse to give a copy of the seven members’ decision to the ‘accused,’ in spite of written demands for same. The respondent files a complaint to CHRAJ which now prompts the committee to deliver a decision signed by three persons, and not the seven persons who gave the decision!

In the meantime, the person files an appeal against the committee’s decision. For a whole year and a half, not even a Civil Form 2^[2] is issued to give any semblance of an effort to list the appeal. The person writes formally to the Chief Justice as the chair of the committee's institution. The letter is not acknowledged. But Form 2 is promptly issued. Conditions of appeal are set. The person (appellant) fulfills all the conditions of appeal immediately and within the Registrar’s stipulated time.

Three (3) years pass since the appeal was filed and conditions of appeal fulfilled. Nothing is heard from the Registry of the Court of Appeal ever again. The appeal is stillborn. In the meantime, the institution the Chief Justice chairs writes and circulates a letter to “all courts” in Ghana warning them not to grant audience to the person who has filed the appeal, without so much as dignifying the person concerned with a copy of the letter. This scenario may sound too outrageous to be true. Ladies and gentlemen, what has been recounted is a live story. And it is the culmination of proceedings that were held in camera.

Quite apart from the fact that all serious nations and institutions have passed laws to move away from in camera proceedings, there are practical difficulties associated with the practice that makes it unfit in any decent democracy. Some of these are stated below.

•      The committee can decide to sit at any venue of their choice. Indeed, they can choose where to sit on any given day as it suits their pleasure.

•      The committee may set the known rules of procedure on their own head and adopt its own methods to conduct the hearing; for instance, on how to receive evidence from witnesses. The story is told of in camera proceedings involving certain judges where the star witness appeared as three identical persons wearing masks! One of the ‘triplets’ gave evidence. The committee accepted evidence from such a witness. Based on the evidence, the judges were dismissed. This could never happen in open court. Indeed, in similar proceedings in a court recently, a witness’s request to appear in open court in a mask and give evidence was rejected by the court. What happened next? The witness chose to live behind his mask than to give evidence ‘in face.’ Not unexpectedly, the proceedings were terminated. Such is the power of open court hearings. It promotes transparency and vouches for the integrity of the adjudicating process.

•      The tribunal or committee could start a hearing, collect evidence from the respondent and use that same evidence to formulate charges against the respondent.

•      In more blatant situations, the committee could change its membership, like the chameleon's colour, on any given day as it deems fit. No one will ever know. The respondent will have no option but to partake in such injustice.

•      The committee members may use offensive and rude language, and otherwise conduct themselves in a manner that they will never dream of showing themselves in public.

•      The committee or tribunal may threaten the respondent with conviction at every opportunity and use all manner of tactics to intimidate, harass and threaten the respondent to either plead guilty or abandon the proceedings altogether.

•      In camera proceedings can be used by unscrupulous persons as an avenue for rent-seeking and corruption.

•       During sittings in some instances in in camera proceedings, the initial objective of the panel is to harass and ruffle the feathers of the respondent/accused person’s lawyers to get them to terminate their representation in the proceedings.

•      It can be used as an opportunity for vengeance. In such instances, vengeance is no more than the Lord’s. Individuals who harbour bitter sentiments about others jump onto the bandwagon to exact their pound of flesh. The opportunity may not only present itself for one to serve as a panel member; some may appear as witnesses or a party’s representative, or even as a lawyer in the proceedings.

•      Due to the opaque nature of the proceedings, the recorded proceedings may be doctored or otherwise tampered with to the detriment of the respondent. The committee may also choose to withhold certain aspects of the proceedings from the record of proceedings. The fact is that the panel control the supporting staff unlike court proceedings where the court Registrar manages courtroom staff.

•      Some in camera proceedings can go on for several years, according to the pleasure of the panel members. There is a case, for example, where an in camera hearing took about five (5) years to complete. There were periods of several months’ intervals where there were no sittings, without any explanation. Then out of the blue, at the panel’s pleasure, a hearing notice would be served on the respondent with just a week’s notice to appear for continuation of hearing.

The list could go on and on, with anecdotal evidence from in camera proceedings held and involving lawyers and judges.

C: International and domestic standards advocate public hearings

It is to prevent the outrageous outcomes that emanate from proceedings held in camera that public international law and the national Constitutions of mature nations have moved away from trials held in secrecy, be they administrative or judicial, international or domestic. International instruments that state that trials and other adjudicating proceedings must be held in public abound. These include:

v  United Nations' Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary

The United Nations' Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary incorporate provisions on tenure, discipline and removal. These were adopted in furtherance of article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrining the right to a “fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.”^[3] (Emphasis in bold added)

v  Universal Declaration of Human Rights

v  IBA Guide for Establishing and Maintaining Complaints and Discipline Procedures.^[4]

On the domestic front, there is no paucity of laws that stipulate that adjudicating authorities must hold proceedings in public.

v  The Constitution, 1992

The most fundamental of laws – the Constitution, 1992 - guarantees open trials and proceedings. It states that the proceedings of any adjudicating authority must be in public. The only exception where a tribunal or adjudicating body may hold proceedings in camera is where it is necessary to do so in the interest of public morality, public safety, or public order.^[5]

D: Why article 146 (8) and regulation 15 of L.I. 2424 cannot stand up to scrutiny

It is unclear why the framers of the Constitution, 1992 gave every Ghanaian and non-Ghanaian in Ghana the right to partake in criminal and civil proceedings in public, but denied the same right to certain persons under article 146, including judges. Article 146 (8) of the Constitution, 1992 states that all proceedings for removing a judge of a Superior Court or a Chief Justice must be held in camera.

Now, article 146 (8) is not the only law rooted in antiquated thinking that is still enjoying time among the laws of Ghana. Parliament has, as recently as 2020, passed a law with a similar provision mandating in camera hearings for disciplinary proceedings against practicing lawyers. The law, known as the Legal Profession (Disciplinary Committee) Rules, 2020 (L.I. 2424) is one of those ill-conceived and poorly drafted laws that were churned out in heaps in 2020.^[6] In the new law are rules intended to regulate the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council (GLC). Guess what: the recent law also provides for in camera hearing of disciplinary matters.^[7]

It bears stating that prior to L.1. 2424 of 2020, the rules regulating the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee of the GLC were the 1958 Rules.^[8] Those rules stated that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers must be held in camera. It was a provision carried over from its colonial ancestor from England called the Legal Practitioners Act of 1884. Yes, you read that right -1884! Almost a century and a half later, Ghana’s Parliament passes a law and maintains such a provision which has long been jilted by its progenitor. In England where the original law was born, disciplinary proceedings against lawyers have been held in public for many years now.

Thus, the originators of the ‘in camera’ rule have seen through the evils of secret trials hidden from the public eye and have moved away from it. The UK’s Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, for instance, holds in-person disciplinary hearings. The proceedings take place in their London Court Rooms, while some hearings may be held remotely via videoconferencing, for example. Therefore, it is open to the public and anyone can attend the hearings. Cases are heard by a panel of three tribunal members, comprising of two solicitor members and one lay member. A solicitor member sits as the chair of the panel.^[9] There are no judges on the Tribunal.

E: Conclusion

In sum, if citizens are equal before the law, then they must be treated equally before the law (excuse the pun). There is no justification - moral, legal or otherwise - for any form of quasi-judicial or quasi-criminal proceedings involving lawyers and judges to be held in camera.

F: POST SCRIPT: Matters Arising

As soon as this concluding part of last week’s article was ready, there was information that the suspended Chief Justice was going to address the nation. It came to pass. The address enumerated and expatiated alleged infractions and violations of her right to fair hearing. For most people, the allegations complained of were already known as they had been set forth in detail in a supplementary affidavit that had been filed in a related suit pending in the Supreme Court.

For those who have never endured the ordeal of being the subject and object of proceedings held (under a so-called legal imperative) in camera, the address probably did not add much to what they had already scooped from the supplementary affidavit floating on social media. But for others, including yours truly, who have had the singular and rare misfortune of enduring a debilitating secret trial spanning a long period of several years, it was not going to be easy to ignore what the Chief Justice had to say. As noted earlier, the substantive submissions she made were not new but she took pains to explain the effect those acts and omissions she complained about were having on her. My heart went out to her on each head of alleged infraction, procedural irregularity and violation of her fundamental and positional rights as Chief Justice. As we say in Asante Twi: “Wo yↄnko da ne wo da.”^[10]

The points that got me thinking and pondering, however, was the Chief Justice’s assertion that the situation she has been confronted with has shown her a “model of injustice” that she would never have thought possible if she had not been exposed to it. She added that as a career judge, rising through the courts’ hierarchy from High Court, Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court and ultimately becoming Chief Justice, she could have never imagined such irregularities possible if she had not personally encountered it.

A lot happened … while you were ‘away’

As indicated earlier, as a graduate of the ’In Camera University,’ I fully appreciate the Chief Justice’s frustration with the system that other colleagues of hers both at the Bar and on the Bench have endured for several years. Anyone who goes through in camera proceedings as a lawyer or judge sees, for the first time, the real nature of justice served by lawyers and judges to their own colleagues. In the case of Chief Justices, it is even more perplexing to think about the embarrassment of being tried before a plurality of persons who do not have any legal qualification.^[11]

The disturbing aspect of the Chief Justice's address, though, is her statement that seems to suggest that, but for the current proceedings she is participating in in camera and what she has had to allegedly suffer thus far, she could not have imagined such a “model of injustice” being inflicted on anyone. The question agitating most people's minds is this: Where did the Chief Justice hold court on the bench for the past 21 years that she never could have imagined the irregularities she complains of as possible if she had not tasted it herself? The fact is not lost on Ghanaians that the alleged procedural irregularities and disregard for due process that she cites have been so endemic in the administrative disciplinary proceedings involving lawyers and judges that our citizens do not find them strange anymore. Or, better put, even if citizens find them unfair and unlawful, the courts have – with the exception of a few instances - failed over the years in most cases to set things right.

For stating that the alleged irregularities are novel to her, one cannot help but surmise that, perhaps some of our judges are completely detached from the goings on in this country. They probably perceive themselves immune from the dangers posed by unregulated proceedings held behind closed doors. They also never think of the day the malleable elements they help propel onto the highest court (ahead of their more experienced and emotionally mature senior colleagues) will become the very conduit through which their fall from grace will be effected. The press statement by the Chief Justice shows that no one can pretend to be safe in the midst of chaos and anarchy, no matter how far removed they may perceive themselves to be. 

One cannot fault the Chief Justice for being unaware that Ghanaian legal and judicial professionals have encountered situations which, weighed against her current complaints, show that she is in good company. A few instances may be recalled here. First is the trial of the so-called “Anas judges.”  It concerned disciplinary proceedings that were held against certain judges who were alleged to have been caught by an investigative journalist taking bribes to influence their work. It is common knowledge that the main witness who appeared before the Committee formed under article 146 of the Constitution appeared in three different versions of himself in masks! That was the least among the plethora of irregularities that attended those proceedings. The Committee relied on such evidence to dismiss some justices of the Superior Courts as well as those of lower courts. It is hard to think that the Chief Justice was totally unaware of those proceedings. Some reported cases, however, suggest that she presided over aspects of those in camera proceedings that led to the dismissal of several judges.[12]

Secondly, it may be recalled that a Court of Appeal judge was made to face disciplinary proceedings recently because he had given a ruling which the Supreme Court found to have violated the rules of natural justice. And it was the Supreme Court that referred him to the Chief Justice for sanction.[13] How can a judge be made to face disciplinary proceedings for doing his job? It is the same question the Chief Justice is asking today. The Court of Appeal judge concerned was hauled before a Committee[14] that sat in camera and he reportedly escaped sanctions by the skin of his teeth.

Thirdly, there are cases of similar irregular proceedings faced by lawyers. Mention is made of Suit No. J1/8/2020. The lawyer in that case had sued the then sitting Chief Justice at the Supreme Court for unlawfully installing himself on a disciplinary  proceedings committee whose membership had been set by law and that the said Chief Justice was not a member of the Disciplinary Committee. The Supreme Court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the case when the said Chief Justice’s lawyer applied to dismiss the case.[15] The parties were directed to file Memorandum of Issues for the hearing to commence.

In a matter of days, the parties were summoned to court. No hearing was held but the Supreme Court decided that the case did not raise an issue of interpretation or enforcement, contrary to its earlier statement. The then Chief Justice went back to sit on the Disciplinary Committee of which he was not a member by law. Later, one of the Supreme Court Justices on the Supreme Court panel (who had never been a member of the Disciplinary Committee holding the hearing) joined the already unlawfully-constituted disciplinary committee, held hearings at the tail end of the proceedings and joined to give a decision against the lawyer. The appeal filed against the decision on 30th June, 2022 is yet to be heard. Even the record of proceedings have not been made till date, though conditions of appeal have long been fulfilled.

Lastly, but by no means least, there have been instances where Chief Justices have used their headship of the GLC to issue letters to “all judges” in Ghana not to grant audience to lawyers who had been granted orders by Superior Courts staying execution of their suspension orders, among others. Such actions were not irregularities; they were illegalities. These and other heinous atrocities could not have been lost on any one within judico-legal circles. Not least, the head of the Judiciary and chairperson of the GLC.

Indeed, time was when it was rumoured that there was a standby ‘execution squad’ at the Court of Appeal whose chief duty was to handle all appeals from the GLC and dismiss them. Some members of the so-called ‘execution squad’ eventually got propelled unto the Supreme Court Bench as they were promised. By their exploits on the Supreme Court Bench thus far, their sponsors are cursing their stars, or so the rumour goes these days. Perhaps, this is also news to the head of the Judiciary, since it is a rumour.

By recounting these instances of atrocious abuse of rules, procedure and processes, one’s intention is not to diminish in any way the effect of the events, processes and procedure being complained of by the Chief Justice. Far from that. They are rather intended to show that many people have suffered similar or worse atrocities in this 4^th Republic. They complained about them the best way they could, not by national press conferences (they had no access to such grandeur means, and they also could not risk being cited and convicted for contempt of Committee to add to their woes) but citizens heard them all the same.

It is, indeed, sad to learn that those in high places did not know that such treatment was the lot of legal professionals and judicial officers until they had their own personal experience of the ‘system’ of which they were an integral part for decades. These are but only a few of several instances of irregularities and blatant abuse of legal processes that legal professionals and judges have had to endure, while high judicial office holders were blissfully unaware - apparently.

For today's citizen, Martin Niemoller’s famous quote might as well read:

"First they came for High Court & Circuit Court judges and District Court magistrates, and I did not speak out because I was not one of them.

Then they came for lawyers and I did not speak out because I was not a lawyer.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.”

It is most refreshing that now that the ‘devil’ has struck home, the ignominious irregularities that have burdened legal and judicial disciplinary proceedings are being given the needed publicity. Hopefully, this latest advocacy by the Chief Justice to champion the cause of judges and other constitutional office holders (and hopefully, lawyers) will continue irrespective of the outcome of the instant proceedings at Adu Lodge, or wherever the train may next stop.

In the meantime, please be informed that the Suspended Lawyers & Judges Association (“SLAJA” for short) is billed to be launched soon. According to the promoters, one Ms. F has been nominated by popular acclamation to be the inaugural President of the Lawyers’ Division of the Association. Her greatest achievement that won her the coveted position, according to credible sources, is the fact that she holds the enviable Guinness Book of Records “legathon” award for the world’s longest legal suspension sentence. For the Judges’ Division, the promoters are said to have settled on one Ms. G as their first President by consensus. She won such pride of place because, per unimpeachable sources, she holds the black belt as the first CJ suspendee in the 4^th Republic.

We wish SLAJA and the joint Presidents well.

Kudos! To the Affirmative Action Act!

NB: This is the second and concluding part of the earlier article titled “In camera impeachment proceedings: Is it a sin? (Part 1)” published on 20^th June, 2025.