The handling of two separate cases has sparked controversy, with many questioning the fairness and consistency of the process. The cases involve two individuals who were treated differently despite similar circumstances.
Different Treatment
One individual was not given the opportunity to see the petition against her or respond to it before a prima facie case was determined. In contrast, the other individual was provided with the petition and given a specific timeframe (seven plus three days) to respond before a prima facie case was determined.
Ghana Bar Association’s Response
The Ghana Bar Association’s response to the cases has also raised eyebrows. When one individual was suspended by presidential discretion without an existing regulation, the association remained silent. However, when the same principle was applied to the other individual, the association argued that the presidential discretion was exercised in error due to the lack of regulation.
Admission of Offense
One individual has admitted to an offense and refunded thousands of dollars. Despite this admission, some argue that it is not enough to determine a prima facie case.
Calls for Consistency.
Many are calling for consistency in the application of the law, citing the principle “what is good for the goose is good for the gander.” The perceived intellectual dishonesty in the handling of these cases has sparked concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the process.