There is a quiet rule in litigation, almost like an unwritten oath: when a matter enters the courtroom, the world outside must dim its noise. But in the ongoing divorce battle between Richard Nii Armah Quaye (RNAQ) and Joana Quaye, that silence has been broken, and what has followed is not just a dispute between spouses, but a carefully worded clash between two formidable legal minds.
On one side stands counsel for Joana Quaye, Mr Godfred Dame, reacting to a media interview granted by her husband during the pendency of an appeal. On the other, counsel for Richard Quaye, Mr Taddeaus Sory, pushing back sharply, not only on the substance, but on the very act of speaking to the public at all.
What began as a marital dispute has taken on a second life in the public domain. At this stage, the issue is not yet the final division of property. It is about competing narratives, each side attempting to frame the story while the appeal is still pending.
The Wife’s Case: Facts, Reputation, and Timing
Counsel for Joana Quaye sets the tone with a firm response to a media interview granted by her husband. The interview, they argue, contains allegations that are substantially untrue and damaging to her reputation.
But the response is not framed as mere denial. It leans heavily on what they describe as “matters of public record.” The marriage, they say, took place in 2010, shortly after the husband’s return from the United Kingdom at a time when he had neither employment nor the assets he now holds. This, they insist, is not a matter of opinion but one already reflected in court proceedings.
According to them, the timeline of the marriage is not in dispute: a union formed in 2010, shortly after the husband’s return from the United Kingdom at a time they insist he had neither employment nor the wealth he now commands. They also point to the joint founding of a micro-credit company in 2011, presenting it as a shared economic beginning from which later wealth flowed. In their telling, even the controversial issue of shares, allegedly transferred without the wife’s knowledge, is already documented within court proceedings.
Beyond the factual contest lies a more pointed concern. The timing of the interview, coming while the appeal is active, is portrayed as an attempt to shape public perception. In their view, this risks undermining the fairness of the proceedings. The appeal, they emphasize, has already been properly initiated and must be left to the courts to determine.
The Husband’s Lawyer’s Response: Procedure First, Then Substance
The response from the husband’s lawyers turns the spotlight back with equal intensity. They begin with a procedural rebuke. Engaging the media, they argue, is itself improper for a lawyer involved in active litigation. Citing the professional conduct rules, they suggest that the wife’s counsel has crossed a line, one that exists to prevent exactly this kind of public sparring while a case is sub judice. It is a strategic inversion. Where one side alleges prejudice from an interview, the other alleges professional misconduct in the response.
From there, the RNAQ’s lawyers move to the substance. They reject the claim that the interview attacked the wife’s reputation, pointing out that no specific statements were identified. They also dispute the narrative that their client returned to Ghana without assets, maintaining that this portrayal is not supported by the High Court’s judgment.
On the issue of the company and its shareholding they respond that these matters were not part of the claims placed before the court in the divorce proceedings. As such, they argue, they should not now be introduced as if they form the core of the dispute.
Perhaps most forcefully, they address the allegation of abuse. Here, they rely on a prior court outcome, stating that the High Court had already dismissed such claims in earlier proceedings. That point is deployed not just as a denial, but as an attempt to close the door on that line of argument altogether.
The Question of Public Influence
At the centre of the exchange is a shared but contested concern. Both sides accuse the other of attempting to influence public perception while the case is still before the courts.
For the wife’s counsel, the interview represents an effort to prejudice the public against their client. For the husband’s counsel, the press response itself amounts to an improper attempt to litigate in the media.
In different ways, both positions return to the same principle. Matters before the court should be determined by evidence and law, not by public commentary.
The High Court Decision and the Road Ahead
The dispute now sits against the backdrop of a High Court ruling delivered in January 2026. The decision granted the wife a financial award of GH¢300,000 and a portion of the matrimonial home, while rejecting a much larger claim. The reasoning of the court, particularly its remarks on the nature of marriage and financial expectations, has drawn significant public attention.
That decision is now under appeal. The wife seeks what she describes as a fair and equitable redistribution of the marital assets, placing both the outcome and the reasoning of the High Court before the Court of Appeal.
For now, the legal contest continues on two fronts. One unfolds in the structured setting of the courtroom, guided by rules and procedure. The other plays out in the public space, shaped by statements, responses, and competing interpretations.
The final word will come from the court. Until then, the question remains who controls the narrative while the law takes its course.
