- Lawyer Maurice Ampaw suggested Joana Quaye should have killed her husband for more property.
- The comments were made during a media discussion regarding a high-profile divorce settlement.
- Public and legal bodies are calling for sanctions against Ampaw for trivializing violence.
Controversial Ghanaian legal practitioner, Maurice Ampaw, is facing a massive wave of public backlash following a highly insensitive comment regarding the ongoing property dispute between Joana Quaye and her estranged husband. During a live media discussion, Ampaw suggested that the legal battle would have been more “beneficial” for Joana if she had taken a more violent path.
The lawyer remarked that Joana Quaye “would have gotten more properties” if she had killed her husband a statement that has sent shockwaves through the legal fraternity and social media. The comment was made in reference to the high-profile settlement disagreement between Joana and her estranged partner, Richard Nii Armah Quaye, the well-known founder of Quick Credit (now Bills Micro-Credit).
The public reaction has been swift and fierce, with many describing the lawyer’s words as reckless, dangerous, and a direct incitement to violence. Critics argue that such a statement from a member of the bar trivializes domestic homicide and undermines the very legal and ethical standards he is sworn to uphold.
Supporters of Joana Quaye have expressed deep concern, noting that the ongoing legal process is already a source of significant emotional stress. They argue that sensational remarks like these only serve to distort the narrative and distract from the lawful resolution of the property settlement. Various civil society groups are already calling on the General Legal Council (GLC) to investigate the commentary and apply necessary sanctions to deter future occurrences.
Despite the mounting pressure and the trending hashtag calling for an apology, Maurice Ampaw has yet to issue a formal clarification. Known for his unfiltered approach to legal analysis, he has often walked the thin line between legal education and sensationalism, but this latest incident has many questioning if he has finally crossed a point of no return.
As the controversy intensifies, the incident serves as a stark reminder of the power and impact of public commentary on sensitive legal matters. Legal experts maintain that influential voices must prioritize measured communication, especially when dealing with high-profile domestic disputes that have the potential to impact the safety and reputations of the individuals involved.
