The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) has jumped into the Woyome saga, pointing out as flawed the position of some pro-NDC newspapers that three female lawyers at the Attorney General’s Department be removed because they are related or married to “opposition politicians.”

In a statement on the subject signed by Frank W.K. Beecham and Peter R. Zwennes, National President and National Secretary respectively, the GBA stated, “It is rather alarming that the right to serve Mother Ghana as a public or civil servant should be linked to and affected by either whom ones father is or who you are married to.”

The reaction of the GBA, arguably the closest they have gotten to the Woyomegate saga so far, was prompted by the position of some pro-NDC papers that the three females, because of their relationship to some NPP personalities, should be relieved of their positions at the AG’s Department.

The newspapers have not left out the AG, Martin Amidu, a demand which they have made for the umpteenth time in their publications of a couple of days ago.

While not interested in delving into the internal dynamics of political parties, the GBA, nonetheless, according to their statement, “condemn in the strongest terms the attempt to create a link between the writer’s personal dissatisfaction with the work of the Honourable Attorney General on the one hand and the continuous employment of the three lady lawyers as state attorneys on the other hand.”

Members of the GBA, the statement posited, as highly professional personalities, serve in various capacities adhering to the ethics of the legal profession and as laid out by statute, adding, “thus unlike many other professions in the realm, a breach of our ethical rules is a breach of law.”

In view of the sacrificial and selfless demands of the legal work, the GBA pointed out, “if a lawyer fails to meet the standards set by law and the related regulations governing the office that he or she holds, that lawyer should be dealt with in accordance with those regulations.”

Continuing the statement, the GBA pointed out that in the absence of any instance of professional incompetence, ethical misconduct or breach of the applicable regulations, “we find it deplorable, unacceptable and highly immoral to demand any public or civil servant (including members of this association) should be removed from office, on no other ground but the vacuous claim based on what their family relations are.”

The prime objective of lawyers, the GBA counselled, was to uphold the law as it is with state attorneys, corporate lawyers, military and police lawyers and private legal practitioners.

The AG, as the principal legal adviser to the government, is the protector of the people’s rights, the GBA pointed out, adding, “It is not the business of the learned Attorney General of the Republic to have persons imprisoned or cause them to lose their life or property without due process.”

The AG can only prosecute cases, according to the GBA, based upon the evidence and material available, irrespective of political colouration, and leave it to the court to decide whether or not a case has been made out against the alleged offender.

The AG, the association went on, must be satisfied that there are sufficient facts to support a prosecution before putting a case before court.

“It is therefore unfair to accuse the Attorney General, merely because someone thinks he ought to prosecute persons of a different political persuasion,” the GBA stated.

All and sundry, the umbrella body of lawyers reminded, should remember the constitutional provisions that impose on state authorities a duty to be fair and candid, frown on the exercise of state power in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious or biased either by resentment, prejudice or personal dislike.

The GBA assured its membership of its total support “in all its situations, if they should occur.”