A petition has been filed by the International Federation of Women Lawyers, Ghana (FIDA Ghana), calling for structured training of judges and magistrates handling matrimonial and gender-sensitive cases. The organisation has formally petitioned the Chief Justice, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, urging the Judiciary to introduce targeted educational programmes to strengthen judicial handling of divorce, spousal property distribution, and related family law disputes.
The petition follows public concern surrounding remarks and reasoning in the High Court decision of Mrs. Joana Quaye v. Richard Nii Armah Quaye (Suit No. DM/0569/2021), delivered on January 20, 2026 by Justice Justin Kofi Dorgu.
Background to the Petition
FIDA Ghana, a women’s rights organisation working to promote access to justice and gender equality, expressed concern over aspects of the judgment that it considers inconsistent with established principles of matrimonial property law and judicial restraint.
While acknowledging the authority of the court to determine disputes before it, the organisation stated that its concern lies in the reasoning and language used, particularly in relation to the dignity of women and the treatment of non-financial contributions within marriage.
According to FIDA Ghana, the language used in parts of the judgment risks undermining public confidence in the neutrality of family courts and the fairness of outcomes in matrimonial disputes.
Concerns Over Judicial Language and Reasoning
At the heart of FIDA Ghana’s complaint is the assertion that certain expressions attributed to the judgment were inappropriate in a legal determination involving spousal property and financial relief.
The organisation specifically objected to references that appeared to assess the petitioner’s physical appearance and perceived prospects of remarriage, arguing that such considerations are irrelevant to legal entitlement and risk reinforcing gender stereotypes in judicial reasoning.
FIDA Ghana also criticised what it described as dismissive language used in relation to the applicant’s financial claims, stressing that courts are required to evaluate claims based on law and evidence, not characterisations that may trivialise or diminish legitimate contributions within marriage.
The petition further expressed concern over reasoning that appeared to suggest that financial relief in divorce should serve as a deterrent to marital breakdown.
According to the organisation, such an approach risks shifting the role of the court from adjudication to moral or behavioural
regulation, which may be inconsistent with the judicial function.
Matrimonial Property Law and Constitutional Context
FIDA Ghana grounded its concerns in Article 22 of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees equitable access to property jointly acquired during marriage and mandates fair distribution upon dissolution.
The organisation also referenced recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, including Amma Owusu Sarpong v. Kojo Owusu Sarpong (J4/77/2023), decided on 17 December 2025, which reaffirmed that both direct and indirect contributions to marital property must be considered in determining equitable distribution.
According to the petition, the approach outlined by the Supreme Court requires a fact-based and inclusive assessment of contributions within marriage, including domestic, emotional, and managerial roles, rather than reliance on stereotypes or general assumptions.
FIDA Ghana further emphasised that lower courts are constitutionally bound to follow decisions of the Supreme Court on questions of law, in accordance with Article 129(3) of the Constitution. Judicial Conduct and Professional Standards
The petition also drew attention to the Judicial Service Code of Conduct, which requires judges to avoid bias or the appearance of bias, including on the basis of sex, marital status, or socio-economic background.
FIDA Ghana argued that family law cases are particularly sensitive to perceptions of bias, given that they often involve vulnerable parties, unequal bargaining power, and socially embedded assumptions about gender roles.
It warned that judicial language in such cases does not only determine outcomes but also shapes public understanding of fairness in the justice system.
Wider Public Reaction and Social Context
FIDA Ghana noted that the judgment has generated significant public discussion since its circulation, including commentary in legal circles, media platforms, and informal community spaces.
According to the organisation, it has received numerous inquiries and expressions of concern from members of the public, particularly women seeking clarity on the implications of the decision for matrimonial property claims.
The petition also referenced wider social commentary that has accompanied the case, including public discussion about the respondent’s lifestyle and financial capacity, which has further intensified scrutiny of the judgment.
While acknowledging that such public discourse exists outside the courtroom, FIDA Ghana cautioned that judicial reasoning must remain insulated from public sentiment and grounded strictly in legal principle.
Call for Judicial Training and Reform
FIDA Ghana urged the Chief Justice to consider institutional measures aimed at strengthening judicial competence in matrimonial and gender-sensitive adjudication.
The organisation is calling for structured training programmes for judges and magistrates, focusing on areas such as constitutional principles governing spousal property rights, proper evaluation of non-financial contributions in marriage, gender-sensitive judicial reasoning, judicial restraint in language and commentary and application of Supreme Court precedents in family law. It argued that such training would enhance consistency in decision-making and reinforce public
confidence in the fairness of family courts.
FIDA Ghana concluded its petition by reaffirming respect for the independence of the Judiciary while emphasising the importance of judicial sensitivity in family law matters.
It stated that the objective of its intervention is not to challenge judicial authority, but to support the development of a justice system that reflects constitutional values of dignity, equality, and fairness.
The petition is before the Office of the Chief Justice, with expectations that it may inform future administrative or educational reforms within the Judiciary.
