The International Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA Ghana) has petitioned the Judicial Service of Ghana, calling for the urgent retraining of judges following what it describes as a “dangerous” and deeply troubling divorce ruling.
In a letter dated April 13 and addressed to Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, the organisation raised concerns over a judgment delivered on January 20, 2026, in the case involving Joana Quaye and Richard Nii Armah Quaye.
FIDA Ghana emphasised that its petition does not challenge judicial independence but focuses on aspects of the ruling’s reasoning and language which, in its view, undermine the dignity of women and erode public confidence in the fairness, neutrality, and sensitivity required in family law adjudication. The organisation further argued that the judgment represents a departure from established principles governing the distribution of marital property.
Highlighting the significance of family courts, FIDA noted that such forums often serve as a final avenue for individuals—particularly women—seeking relief following the breakdown of a marriage. It stressed that judicial reasoning must not only deliver justice but also affirm the dignity, equality, and humanity of litigants.
The group expressed strong disapproval of portions of the judgment, particularly references to the petitioner as “physically attractive” and “capable of remarrying anytime she felt like,” describing such remarks as inappropriate and irrelevant to legal analysis. According to FIDA, such commentary risks introducing gendered stereotypes into judicial decision-making and suggests that entitlement to justice may be influenced by considerations unrelated to law.
FIDA also criticised the court’s assertion that “marriage is not an investment” and its characterisation of the petitioner’s financial claim as “ridiculous.” It argued that such language diminishes the recognition of non-financial contributions, including domestic and emotional labour, and may convey that such contributions carry limited legal value.
The petition further challenged the reasoning that financial relief could serve as a means of discouraging divorce. FIDA rejected this position, asserting that courts are not intended to deter individuals from pursuing lawful remedies where a marriage has irretrievably broken down. It cautioned that such reasoning may create the perception that judicial outcomes are shaped by personal moral views rather than established legal principles.
Additionally, the organisation pointed to what it described as inconsistencies within the ruling, including references to the respondent’s earning capacity and business interests alongside an order of GH¢5,000 monthly maintenance for three minor children.
FIDA argued that the judgment departs from constitutional standards, citing Article 22 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, which guarantees equitable distribution of marital property and recognises both direct and indirect contributions of spouses. It expressed concern that the ruling failed to reflect recent Supreme Court guidance affirming these principles, describing the outcome as indicative of a troubling disregard for established legal processes in matrimonial and gender-sensitive cases.
Beyond the specific case, FIDA underscored the broader societal implications of judicial language, noting that court decisions influence public perceptions of justice and can affect the willingness of individuals to seek legal redress. It warned that language perceived as diminishing the dignity of women may discourage others from turning to the courts.
The organisation observed that the ruling has already generated significant public reaction and heightened concerns about fairness within the justice system. It therefore called for immediate intervention by the Judicial Service, including administrative and educational measures aimed at strengthening gender-sensitive adjudication and ensuring that judicial reasoning remains grounded in principles of dignity, fairness, equality, and restraint.
