In Ghana’s often animated public discourse, “beef” has traditionally belonged to musicians, comedians, and the occasional fiery politician. But in a twist that feels more courtroom drama than street battle, two legal heavyweights—Godfred Yeboah Dame, former Attorney-General, and Thaddeus Sory, a seasoned private legal practitioner—have taken their grievances to the public square in a war of words that has left both the legal fraternity and general public in awe, disbelief, and, admittedly, amusement.
What began as a pointed critique has evolved into a Shakespearean clash of egos, eloquence, and institutional commentary, showing not just personal rivalry but the evolving dynamics in Ghana’s legal and political spheres.
The Origin of the Beef
At the heart of the public fallout is the probe into the suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo. Dame, speaking on an Accra-based radio station, took aim at the lawyers involved in the petition to remove the Chief Justice, particularly singling out Thaddeus Sory and Tsatsu Tsikata as politically aligned with the NDC. It was a jab that drew blood.
Sory, never one to retreat from a rhetorical challenge, responded not on a legal platform but via Facebook—thus ensuring maximum public exposure. His responses, laced with sarcasm, legal barbs, and personal invective, painted Dame as an “incongruous cry baby,” igniting what has become the most literate “beef” in recent Ghanaian memory.
Their exchanges are littered with legal references, professional slights, and a remarkable effort to maintain formality even while descending into personal jabs. Sory’s tone is biting and flamboyant, mixing street-wise metaphors (“potoo” losses) with high-level legal references. Dame, meanwhile, seeks to assert superiority with a structured rebuttal steeped in legal precedent, institutional memory, and accusations of obsession and jealousy.
Dame frames Sory’s commentary as a breach of legal ethics and decorum, asserting that “most decent minded legal practitioners” abhor the tone and content of Sory’s outbursts. Sory, on the other hand, accuses Dame of hypocrisy, partisanship, and opportunism—implying that the former AG has weaponized his office in ways that undermine judicial independence.
Implication
At one level, this feud underscores the deep politicization of Ghana’s legal environment. Both Dame and Sory have impressive legal resumes, and both have represented clients across political divides. But their public squabble reveals how legal representation and political alignment are increasingly viewed through partisan lenses.
This has also reignited public conversations about the state of the judiciary. Accusations of judicial bias, politically motivated appointments, and selective justice have long dogged Ghana’s legal system. With two of the profession’s most visible figures now battling each other in the court of public opinion, confidence in the system risks being further eroded.
This is no ordinary feud. It is a collision of ambition, legacy, and ideology—played out in the public arena, beyond the courtroom walls. It reflects a broader trend of legal professionals abandoning behind-the-scenes channels for public confrontation in a bid to win hearts, minds, and perhaps political capital.
In another era, this would have been settled by private arbitration or a stern rebuke from the Bar. Today, it plays out on social media, in press interviews, and via open letters, with the legal community watching in both fascination and discomfort.
For all its entertainment value, the Dame-Sory exchange offers deeper insights into how Ghana’s legal-political ecosystem functions—and fractures. The veneer of legal professionalism is being tested by the pressures of politics, public perception, and personal ambition.
As Ghanaians munch their proverbial popcorn, the hope is that the judiciary and legal ethics don’t become collateral damage in a feud that, however entertaining, threatens to trivialize serious institutional issues.
Whether this ends in reconciliation, regulatory sanction, or simply dies down with time, one thing is clear: this was not just another celebrity beef—it was a courtroom of reputations, fought in the public gallery.
