Thaddeus Sory Rebukes Former Attorney General Godfred Dame: “Still Crying, Even More Incongruously”

By Thaddeus Sory | Commentary

Thaddeus Sory, one of Ghana’s most prominent legal practitioners, has responded publicly to remarks made by Godfred Yeboah Dame, the former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, in a pointed and provocative piece titled “Still Crying, Even More Incongruously – Part One.”

The post, published on social media and now circulating widely in legal and political circles, accuses Dame of hypocrisy, factual distortion, and unethical behavior, while defending Sory’s own legal work and professional integrity.

Why Sory Responded

Sory says he felt compelled to respond for two reasons:

1. He sees signs that Dame (whom he sarcastically refers to as “Cry Baby”) may be capable of learning.

2. He believes such public behavior cannot go unchecked.

“We do not suffer spoilt children,” Sory stated, opening a blistering 18-point breakdown of what he sees as Dame’s pattern of contradictions and emotional outbursts.

Clashing Narratives

Sory directly challenges Dame’s previous criticisms, which include:

• Allegations that Sory is “obsessed” with him.

• Claims that Sory’s criticism is “unethical.”

• Assertions of increased judicial independence during Dame’s tenure.

In response, Sory questions how Dame can acknowledge Sory’s NPP-affiliated clients while labeling him partisan simply because he represented a client who filed a petition against the Chief Justice.

He recalls how Dame once objected to his legal representation of the Speaker of Parliament, only to later fault him for his absence from the very same case—a contradiction Sory labels “despicably incongruous.”

Legal Missteps Highlighted

Sory outlines several legal and procedural errors he believes Dame has made:

• A flawed interpretation of injunction law, which prompted a correction from Justice Amadu in the Assafuah case.

• Missteps in the Jakpa case, where the Court of Appeal ruled against Dame on a point of law raised by Sory himself.

• A legally “incompetent” notice of appeal, which Dame argued would have prevailed in the Supreme Court had it not been withdrawn.

“Imagine reaching all the way back to 2009 to dig up a case whose title you can’t even name, just to prove you beat me in court,” Sory said.

On Ethics and Professional Conduct

In response to Dame’s accusation of unethical behavior, Sory points to what he calls a longstanding pattern of Dame’s own public commentary on ongoing cases—behavior that contravenes Rule 38 of Ghana’s professional conduct guidelines.

“What could be more unethical than a lawyer who takes to radio and social media ALL THE TIME to prosecute his cases in public?” Sory wrote.

He also criticized Dame’s tendency to publicly attack judges following unfavorable rulings, even without fully reading the judgments.

A Battle of Reputations

Sory's article not only rebukes Godfred Dame's professional conduct but also suggests a deeper, personal dynamic. He frames Dame’s repeated references to him in interviews and media as obsessive:

“My name grips him like an epileptic seizure… So again, who’s obsessed with whom?”

While maintaining a tone of humor in parts, Sory’s commentary is a serious defense of his reputation and a direct challenge to what he sees as Dame’s misuse of legal and political platforms.

Conclusion

This public clash between Thaddeus Sory and Godfred Yeboah Dame, both major figures in Ghana’s legal landscape, reflects not just a personal feud, but also broader tensions over legal ethics, political neutrality, and professional integrity within Ghana’s judiciary.

Sory ends with a half-sarcastic apology to his supporters:

“Please forgive me. It is just me being silly—but not in a hard way.”