THE former wife of businessman, Richard Nii Armah Quaye, Joanne Quaye, has petitioned the Chief Justice, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, over what she described as “gross misconduct” of the trial of the High Court Judge in her divorce case against Nii Quaye.
Justice Justin Dorgu was the Judge who delivered judgment in the divorce case involving Nii Quaye and Joana Quaye on January 20, 2026.
Joana had appealed against the decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal, which is still pending.
In her petition to the Chief Justice, Joana Quaye is alleging that the full written judgment was filed three months later on April 20, 2026.
It is her case that the timing was not just irregular, but calculated.
Joana Quaye alleges that court records, covering the final orders, the property division, child custody, and maintenance, were issued on January 20, 2026, effectively triggering the three-month window for appeal.
However, Joana Quaye stated that the detailed reasoning behind those orders, contained in the full judgment, was not filed or made available until April 20, when the appeal window expired a day before on April 19.
For Joana Quaye, this raises a troubling question: did the Judge do this deliberately to deny her a fair opportunity to appeal? If her new lawyers, Dame& Partners, not managed to promptly file an appeal and waited for the full judgment, would her right to appeal not have been defeated?
She argues that the Judge’s actions effectively “ambushed” her legal rights.
Joana Quaye contends that Justice Dorgu issued what he described as the “Conclusion” of his judgment before actually writing the full decision, then released the reasoning only after the deadline for appeal had lapsed. Effectively, the judge “worked his way back” after writing the conclusions and filing same.
She further stated that the sequence of events suggests more than just procedural delay. In her petition, she questions how a judge could finalise conclusions in a case affecting her constitutional and spousal rights before going back to work on the legal reasoning behind them, and release same after her right to an appeal had elapsed.
Joana accuses the Judge of “serialising” his judgment in a manner that undermined her right to justice, insisting that the process has resulted in what she calls “two versions” of the court’s decision; one she was forced to respond to without full context, and another revealed too late to challenge.
Describing the situation as “unfair” and “deeply troubling,” she warns that such conduct risks bringing Ghana’s judiciary into disrepute.
Consequently, Joana Quaye is demanding a full-scale inquiry into Justice Dorgu’s conduct, urging the Chief Justice and relevant authorities to investigate whether the delayed release of the judgment amounts to judicial misconduct.
She argues that the issue goes beyond her personal case, warning that if left unchecked, such practices could endanger the rights of other litigants, particularly women and vulnerable individuals navigating the justice system.
BY MALIK SULLEMANA
Follow our WhatsApp Channel now! https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbAjG7g3gvWajUAEX12Q
