Scott Pwamang (L) criticised Barker-Vormawor (R) for his comments on the courts
Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang has reportedly rebuked and criticised social activist and private legal practitioner Oliver Barker-Vormawor over comments he made regarding a decision of the Kenyan High Court.
Justice Pwamang’s remarks were in response to a social media post by Barker-Vormawor, in which he favourably compared the Kenyan judiciary to Ghana’s Supreme Court following a ruling that quashed the appointment of 21 presidential advisers by Kenyan President William Ruto.
Attempt to rearrest Abu Trica, others by NACOC offended judge – Barker-Vormawor
According to a TV3 news card shared on January 28, 2026, the Supreme Court Justice cautioned Barker-Vormawor against what he described as comments capable of undermining public confidence in Ghana’s judiciary and fomenting hostility towards the Chief Justice.
“CJ is working hard to get resources. You’re creating hatred for the CJ. We will not allow this,” Justice Pwamang was quoted by TV3.
He further warned that persistent attacks on the court would not be tolerated.
“You people must be careful the way you treat this court and think you can get away with it,” he added.
In his social media commentary, Barker-Vormawor praised the Kenyan High Court for declaring the appointments unconstitutional and questioned Ghana’s judicial posture in similar matters.
“Nti Ghana Dabɛn? Kenyan High Courts are doing things that even our Supreme Court is afraid to imagine. Why? Where did we pass?” he wrote on Facebook on January 26, 2026.
He explained that the Kenyan court found the appointments unlawful because they bypassed constitutional bodies such as the Public Service Commission and the Salaries and Remuneration Commission, excluded public participation, and lacked justification within the public service structure.
According to Barker-Vormawor, the Kenyan court held that executive authority must be exercised within constitutional limits, including transparency, merit-based recruitment, fiscal responsibility, and public oversight.
“The Court held that the appointments violated the Constitution and public service laws because they bypassed the Public Service Commission, ignored the Salaries and Remuneration Commission, excluded public participation, and lacked any workload or structural justification,” he stated.
He added, “The recruitment process was described as a ‘rubber stamping’ exercise, with no evidence of merit based selection. The Court noted that executive power must be exercised strictly within constitutional and institutional safeguards, including transparency, merit, fiscal responsibility, and public oversight. By creating and filling these offices outside the established public service framework, the executive acted unlawfully. Hmmm!”
Meanwhile, in a new post dated January 28, 2026, Barker-Vormawor defended his position, saying that his argument was based on what he describes as judicial activism by the Kenyan courts.
FLASHBACK: Barker-Vormawor summoned by Appointments Committee over bribery claims
He added that he had apologised to the court after learning of their displeasure with his comments.
“The Supreme Court today expressed its displeasure with this post. I explained that Kenyan Courts are known for their judicial activism and that’s the import of the post. And apologized to the Court. Shalom,” he wrote.
MAG/MA
‘Veep has chosen Haruna Iddrisu as her running mate’ – Afenyo-Markin alleges:
