By Gifty Boateng
Private legal practitioner and lecturer, Maurice Ampaw has boldly dropped a bombshell, alleging that he personally knows judges who cook judgements and rulings to favour guilty people in court for monetary gains.
According to him, these judges have mastered their crafts of taking money from parties in cases to outsmart their client.
He alleged that the corrupt judges make sure the judgments go in the way of the guilty person, a claim that has taken my Ghanaians by surprise with some saying his allegation may not be far from the truth.
Speaking on Kumasi based Lawson TV, Ampaw, who prides himself as a very successful lawyer with over 300 cases to his credit, said his assertion is true because he is “the judges judge”.
The controversial lawyer, without mincing words gave out how they operate, saying that the judges intentionally tweak the case in favour of the guilty person and then immediately after, advised that the losing person appeals.
Apparently, he said, they do this by freely offering guidelines or what is called in Ghanaian palace ‘apor’ to the affected persons to punch holes into their own judgments on how to emerge victorious.
“We have lawyers, when there is a case, they take from both the guilty and the blameless. When he is done, they tweak the case in favour of the guilty person. Then he will proceed to call in confidence the one that the case went against and tell him or her that I intentionally found you guilty so you will go on appeal”, he said forcefully.
As if speaking from experience, the lawyer did not end there.
He continued that the judges proceed to give vivid information and guidelines as to how they can go around the case and the judgments so that the guilty persons get the true outcomes.
This will mean that in the end, a judge is seen as having helped both parties to win the case.
He pointed out that; the judges do this to satisfy both parties after ‘cashing out’ bigly on the blind side of the public.
“These are the points to stand on. So, in the end the judge ends up appeasing both the guilty and the loser”.
Cleverly, the judges go unpunished because they put the blame squarely on political authority or influential people, when in fact they may not even be aware of their false claims.
Speaking with confidence, Ampaw admitted that some of the judges reveal the case are politically motivated. And so, the judges justify their actions and try to give remedial solutions by urging the victim or so-called guilty person to appeal.
“I am judges’ judge. He will tell you there is order from above. He will tell you there is pressure from influential people, so the case is politically motivated or influential that is why he adjudicated it in that manner. So, he intentionally destroyed the case so go on appeal and he will show you the loopholes. So, when you go and appeal and you win then it means he is been able to knock your heads together and he is done his job for the money he took”.
Meanwhile, the International Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA) Ghana has petitioned the Judicial Service of Ghana, calling for 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 Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, FIDA Ghana raised concerns over the judgment delivered on January 20, 2026, in the case of Mrs Joana Quaye v. Richard Nii Armah Quaye.
The group stressed that its concerns are not about judicial independence but about “aspects of the reasoning and language employed in the judgment which 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, in addition to being a complete departure from recognised principles governing distribution of marital property.”
FIDA emphasised the critical role of family courts, stating, “For many women, the family court is not merely a forum of litigation. It is the place they come to when a marriage has broken down… and when the law becomes their last refuge.”
It added, “It is not enough that justice be done. The reasoning by which justice is expressed must affirm the dignity, equality, and humanity of those who stand before the court.”
The group expressed “complete 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 “offensive and deeply troubling.”
“Such commentary has no place in the legal analysis,” the petition stated, warning that it suggests “a woman’s entitlement to justice may be weighed against stereotypes about her appearance, desirability, or remarriage prospects.”
FIDA also criticized the judge’s assertion that “marriage is not an investment” and the characterization of the petitioner’s financial claim as “ridiculous,” cautioning that such language undermines the recognition of women’s non-financial contributions.
“To dismiss or diminish this reality risks sending a message that the invisible labour of women has little legal value,” the group said.
The petition further challenged the reasoning that financial relief should operate “as a way of dissuading these frequent divorces,” stressing that “courts do not exist to deter people from seeking lawful relief when a marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation.”
FIDA warned that such reasoning could have broader consequences. “It creates the impression that family law remedies are being shaped by the moral standards of the judge rather than established legal principles.”
The group also pointed to what it described as a troubling inconsistency in the judgment, noting references to the respondent’s “earning capacity and ‘numerous companies,’” alongside an order of GH¢5,000 monthly maintenance for three minor children.
It argued that the judgment departs from constitutional standards, citing Article 22, which guarantees equitable distribution of marital property and recognises both direct and indirect contributions.
FIDA expressed concern that the ruling ignored recent Supreme Court guidance affirming these principles, describing it as “a worrying ignorance of principles and process for adjudication of matrimonial and gender-sensitive causes.”
The organisation warned of wider societal impact, noting that judicial language shapes public perception. “What is said in courtrooms does not remain in courtrooms. Women and children read these judgments.”
It added that the ruling has already triggered widespread public reaction and anxiety about fairness in the justice system.
FIDA concluded by urging immediate action. It called for “such administrative, educational, or other appropriate measures as may reinforce gender-sensitive adjudication in matrimonial matters,” stressing the need for judicial reasoning to remain grounded in “dignity, fairness, equality, and restraint.”