RNAQ’s ex-wife petitions CJ over judge's alleged misconduct in divorce case

The former wife of businessman Richard Nii Armah Quaye has petitioned the Chief Justice, alleging misconduct by the judge who heard their case.

Joana Quaye is asking for an inquiry into the conduct of Justice Justin Dorgu, who delivered final orders in the matter on January 20, 2026.

The case involved property division, child custody and maintenance.

But according to Mrs Quaye, although the final orders were given in January, the full written judgment explaining the court’s reasoning was not made available until April 20, 2026.

She says this timing is central to her complaint.

Court records indicate that the January 20 orders triggered the three-month period within which an appeal could be filed. That period, she argues, ended on April 19, a day before the full judgment became available.

In her petition to the Judicial Council and the Chief Justice, Mrs Quaye says the delay deprived her of a meaningful opportunity to challenge the decision.

Her lawyers, Dame & Partners, have since filed an appeal.

Mrs Quaye contends that Justice Dorgu first issued what was described as the conclusion of the judgment, while the detailed reasons were released only after the appeal period had lapsed.

She argues that this sequence raises serious fairness concerns, including whether the court’s conclusions were reached before the reasoning was fully set out.

The petition also accuses the judge of effectively “serialising” the decision in a way that undermined her right to justice.

According to Mrs Quaye, the process left her facing two versions of the court’s ruling: the orders she was required to act on immediately, and the full reasoning which, she says, came too late to properly challenge within the statutory period.

She describes the situation as unfair and says it risks damaging public confidence in the judiciary.

Mrs Quaye is asking the Chief Justice and the relevant judicial authorities to determine whether the delayed release of the full judgment amounts to judicial misconduct.

She further argues that the matter has wider implications beyond her personal dispute.

In her view, if such practices are not addressed, other litigants, particularly women and vulnerable persons, could be exposed to similar procedural disadvantages.

The petition is expected to draw attention to broader questions about transparency, judicial accountability and the right of parties to appeal decisions with full knowledge of the reasons behind them.