Justice Anthony Forson hears objection to Sam Okudzeto’s legal representation

The Herald has gathered from the Supreme Court that Justice Anthony Forson Jr. has been listed as the sole judge to hear an objection to lawyer Isaac Ofosu-Boateng’s continued representation of former Ghana Bar Association (GBA) President Sam Okudzeto, his daughter Esine Okudzeto, and their law firm, Sam Okudzeto & Associates, in the inheritance dispute involving allegations of fraud.

A hearing on an aspect of the case is scheduled for Thursday, October 29, 2026, as the high-profile family inheritance dispute, which is at its embryonic stage but has already passed through the High Court and the Court of Appeal, continues before the Supreme Court.

The objection has been raised by legal practitioner Peter Kweku Okudzeto, Sam’s half-brother, who is asking the apex court to strike out proceedings arising from an application filed by Sam and other applicants. Peter and his lawyers, namely Andreas Fiadorme and Eli Ahu of Kpatsa & Associates, believe the application is a clever tactic being used by Sam and the others to lock up the case.

What’s interesting about the objection is that Justice Forson Jr. has had a professional relationship with Sam, having served as a GBA president from September 2018 to November 2021.

Justice Forson previously rose through the ranks of the law association, serving as its Public Relations Officer and Vice-President before becoming president, just like Sam Okudzeto, a former Council of State member, who also served as GBA president from 1995 to 1998.

Sam, though 91 years old, still serves as the GBA’s representative on the General Legal Council, including its Disciplinary Committee. Many believe Sam brings enormous value to the study of lawyer behavior, especially given his prior service at the Ghana School of Law as a lecturer in Legal Ethics, a course also taught by his daughter, Esine.

Peter argues that Mr Ofosu-Boateng and Sam Okudzeto & Associates, also known as Sena Chambers, face a conflict of interest because they previously represented the estates at the centre of the litigation but are now acting for parties whose interests he alleges are adverse to those estates.

The proceedings arise from a wider inheritance dispute in which Peter has accused Sam, his daughter Esine, and others of forgery, inheritance fraud, and the alleged unlawful handling of estate assets.

In a supplementary affidavit sworn on October 7, 2026, Peter opposed an application by Sam and the other applicants seeking rectification of the record of appeal and an extension of time.

He contends that the alleged conflict of interest renders their application incompetent and amounts to an abuse of the court’s process.

Peter is also seeking leave for the Supreme Court to admit the supplementary affidavit and its accompanying exhibits, together with an earlier affidavit in opposition filed on October 6, 2026.

The supplementary affidavit, according to Peter, contains additional information and documentary evidence concerning the previous and continuing professional relationships between Mr Ofosu-Boateng, Sam Okudzeto & Associates, and the estates involved in the dispute.

He maintains that both the lawyer and the firm have previously acted and continue to hold themselves out as legal representatives of the Estate of Angelina Siaw Sappore and the Estate of Dr Daniel Narh Siawm, who were his maternal auntie and uncle.

Those estates, he argues, are directly connected to the substantive suit and the appeal currently before the courts.

Peter says the applicants’ interests conflict with those of the estates over assets they are accused of intermeddling with, undervaluing and diverting.

He believes the application seeking to amend the record of appeal and extend time is distracting from the substantive allegations, which the Court of Appeal described as “grave” and directed Sam, Esine and their law firm to address.

To support his objection, Peter has attached three documents to the supplementary affidavit, which he says demonstrate the lawyer’s and the firm’s prior involvement in the administration and representation of the estates.

The first is a letter dated April 22, 2024, addressed to beneficiaries of the Estate of Angelina Siaw Sappore and signed by Mr. Ofosu-Boateng.

According to Peter, the lawyer signed the letter in his capacity as legal representative of the estate and convened a meeting of beneficiaries to discuss the distribution and winding-up of the estate, as well as outstanding legal fees.

The second document, marked Exhibit PK7, is a letter dated March 5, 2025, with reference number EO/IOB/MOOA/5/03/2025, from Sam Okudzeto & Associates to Peter.

Peter says the firm expressly stated in the letter that it had been appointed by Charles Noble Acolatse and Eric Akwetey Siaw-Sappore to represent beneficiaries of Dr Narh’s estate and the children of Eric Teye Akwetey Siaw.

The third document is a legal opinion dated December 10, 2014, with reference number NAOA/IOB/12/14, authored by retired Supreme Court Justice Nene Amegatcher and addressed to the administrators of the Estate of Baby Angelina Mamle Siaw Sappore.

Marked Exhibit PK8, the opinion reportedly addressed the Ada system of inheritance in the case of Eric Tei Akwetey Siaw & 2 Others v Tetteh Siaw Sappore & Another.

Peter contends that the document establishes the firm’s involvement in the estate matters dating back to 2014, initially through Mr Amegatcher and subsequently through Mr Ofosu-Boateng.

He further alleges that Mr Amegatcher, who previously supervised Mr Ofosu-Boateng before the latter’s appointment to the Supreme Court, handed the matter over to him following his elevation to the Bench.

Mr Amegatcher has since returned to private legal practice at Sam Okudzeto & Associates, according to the information presented in the affidavit.

Peter argues that the documents demonstrate that the same firm and lawyer who previously represented the estate are now pursuing an application for parties whose interests he considers adverse to those of the estates.

The Supreme Court is yet to determine the merits of the conflict-of-interest objection.

In advancing his argument, Peter relies on Rules 20, 21, 22, 31, and 89 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 2020 (L.I. 2423).

He contends that the rules prohibit lawyers from acting in circumstances involving conflicts of interest, including representing parties whose interests are materially adverse to those of former clients in the same or substantially related matters.

He also argues that legal practitioners must not represent opposing interests in the same dispute or allow personal interests to interfere with their professional obligations.

Peter further cites the Supreme Court decision in Madam Akosua Adade v Okesseku Mintah [TLP-SC-2026-17], which he says was delivered on April 22, 2026.

According to his affidavit, the decision supports his contention that a breach of professional obligations arising from a conflict of interest may warrant invalidating court processes filed by the lawyer concerned and removing the lawyer’s name from the proceedings as counsel.

On that basis, Peter is asking the court to strike out and dismiss the applicants’ motion and remove Mr Ofosu-Boateng from the proceedings as their lawyer, arguing that the alleged conflict is evident from the documents attached to his application.

He states: “That Exhibit PK8 shows that the 2nd Defendant/Applicant firm has been the lawyer for the Estate of Angelina Siaw Sappore since 2014, first through Nene Amegatcher Esq. and, after his elevation to the Supreme Court, through Isaac Ofosu-Boateng Esq. to date.

“That same firm and lawyer now prosecute this motion for the Applicants, whose interests are adverse to the very estates they were retained to protect.”

He further cites the Adade v Mintah decision as authority for his position that court processes filed in circumstances involving such a conflict should not be sustained.

“The conflict here is not incidental; it is patent on the face of the record. Hence the need for this application,” he argues.

Peter’s objection forms part of a broader dispute over the estates of Angelina Siaw Sappore and Dr Daniel Narh Siaw.

He is pursuing the case on his own behalf and that of his two siblings, Thomas Serou and Felicia Sekou, as children of their late mother, Christiana Aku Siaw Sappor, whom he identifies as the biological sister of Angelina Siaw Sappore and Dr Narh.

Peter alleges that Sam, 91, and his daughter Esine, both of whom he identifies as lecturers in legal ethics at the Ghana School of Law, have no blood relationship to his mother’s family from Ada in the Dangme East District of the Greater Accra Region that would entitle them to inherit the disputed estates.

He therefore challenges their alleged entitlement to benefit from the estate of his mother’s family and her deceased siblings.

Peter maintains that the Supreme Court should not allow Sam’s law firm to represent estates while simultaneously acting for parties whose interests are allegedly adverse to those estates.

He says the supplementary affidavit was filed in good faith and that admitting the additional evidence would assist the court in determining the applicants’ motion fairly while protecting the integrity of its proceedings.

Peter filed his initial affidavit in opposition on October 6, 2026, following the applicants’ motion of September 25, 2026.

He says the supplementary affidavit became necessary after additional information and documents came to his attention, which he considers material to the question of whether the application before the court is competent.