The International Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA Ghana) has petitioned the Judicial Service of Ghana over what it describes as troubling and offensive language used in a recent divorce ruling.
It warns that such remarks risk undermining public confidence in the courts.
In a letter dated April 13 to the Acting Chief Justice, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, FIDA raised concerns about a judgment delivered on January 20, 2026, by Justice Justin Dorgu in the case involving Mrs Joana Quaye and Richard Nii Armah Quaye.
The group stressed that its petition is not intended to challenge judicial independence but to highlight language and reasoning that “diminish the dignity of women before the courts and weaken public confidence in the fairness, neutrality and sensitivity of judicial reasoning in family law matters.”
Central to the controversy is the judge’s description of the petitioner as “physically… attractive” and “capable of remarrying anytime she felt like,” which FIDA described as inappropriate and irrelevant to the determination of financial relief.
According to the group, “such commentary has no place in the legal analysis. Instead, it suggests that a woman’s entitlement to justice may be weighed against stereotypes about her appearance, desirability, or remarriage prospects.”
FIDA warned that this implication is “incompatible with the dignity of litigants and with the objectivity expected of judicial determinations.”
The organisation also took issue with other aspects of the ruling, including the assertion that “marriage is not an investment” and the description of the petitioner’s financial claim as “ridiculous.”
While acknowledging that courts have the authority to reject claims, FIDA argued that “the language used in doing so should remain measured, relevant, and restrained,” especially in sensitive family law matters.
The group further criticised the judge’s reasoning that financial relief should act “as a way of dissuading these frequent divorces,” insisting that courts are not meant to deter individuals from seeking lawful remedies.
“With respect, courts do not exist to deter people from seeking lawful relief when a marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation,” the petition stated.
FIDA cautioned that such reasoning risks creating the impression that decisions are influenced by personal moral standards rather than established legal principles.
The concerns come against the backdrop of Ghana’s constitutional framework on marital property, particularly Article 22, which guarantees equitable distribution and recognises both direct and indirect contributions by spouses.
FIDA noted that recent Supreme Court decisions have reaffirmed this principle, stressing that contributions such as domestic and emotional labour must be considered.
The group warned that failure to apply these standards, coupled with the use of “offensive considerations unknown to the law,” reflects “a worrying ignorance of principles and process for adjudication of matrimonial and gender-sensitive causes.”
Beyond the specific case, FIDA highlighted the broader societal impact of judicial language, noting that court judgments shape public perception and influence how women view the justice system.
“A judgment that appears to suggest that a woman’s dignity may be weighed against her appearance… risks discouraging many others from approaching the courts at all,” it stated.
The organisation said the public response to the ruling has already been significant, with widespread discussion and concern across professional and social spaces.
FIDA is now urging the Judicial Service to take urgent steps, including enhanced judicial education, to ensure that gender-sensitive adjudication is upheld and that court processes reflect dignity, fairness, and equality.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
Source: www.myjoyonline.com
