RETHINKING LEGAL EDUCATION IN GHANA: IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT THE LAW

INTRODUCTION

Legal education in Ghana stands at the crossroads of significant reform. For decades, aspiring lawyers have navigated a two-stage process: first, an academic LLB degree obtained at a university, followed by a competitive entrance examination into the Ghana School of Law (Makola) for professional training. This system has produced countless lawyers, yet it has also faced persistent criticism for its bottlenecks, exclusivity, and opacity. The ongoing reforms — which propose removing the General Legal Council’s (GLC) direct role in training and introducing a centralized bar examination — are therefore a welcome development. They promise broader access, greater transparency, and alignment with professional qualification models such as ACIB, ACCA, or CIMA.

In an earlier article, “The Law, Common Sense and Wisdom,” published in the Business & Financial Times on 18th November 2023, I reflected on Justice Senyo Dzamefe (JSC)’s observation that “there is a difference between technical knowledge and wisdom,” and that practising law requires “80% common sense and wisdom and only 20% legal knowledge.” In that piece, I referenced the widely accepted definition of wisdom as “the ability to apply knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, and insight in making sound decisions and judgments.” This perspective is significant because it emphasizes that wisdom is not abstract — it is the practical application of knowledge with judgment and balance. The article argued that while many lawyers are technically proficient, their reasoning, public conduct, and even some judicial decisions often lack the depth and wisdom expected of a “learned” profession. The concern was simple: technical knowledge alone does not make a good lawyer.

This current reflection on legal education builds on that concern. It is premised on the view that lawyering is indeed “80% common sense and wisdom and only 20% legal knowledge.”  How, then, should lawyers be trained? As legal education undergoes reform, the critical question is not merely how many lawyers we train or how examinations are administered, but rather: what kind of examinations are being conducted, and what kind of lawyers are being produced? Perhaps our expectations of lawyers are too high — but who set those expectations?

In this article, I will explore the current debate on legal education reform in Ghana and highlight its blind spots. I will demonstrate why the present emphasis on technical examinations — whether at the entry point or as proposed in the new centralized system — misses the more essential qualities lawyers must possess. Drawing on recent examples from public discourse, courtroom practice, and judicial reasoning, I argue that wisdom, ethics, and sound judgment are the real foundations of lawyering. I will also propose a better alternative: a model of assessment that goes beyond legal knowledge to evaluate reasoning, values, and character, so that Ghana produces not just more lawyers, but better lawyers.

A Growing Concern: Public Conduct and Legal Reasoning

There is growing public concern about the quality of legal reasoning and conduct among some Ghanaian lawyers. Increasingly, their contributions to national discourse — particularly when detached from statutory citations and precedents — raise serious questions. Their logic and reasoning, when scrutinized, often appear flawed or unconvincing. In public appearances — whether on television, radio, or social media — some lawyers fall short of the dignity traditionally associated with a “learned” profession. Their analyses, especially on constitutional or political matters, are too often clouded by bias, leaving them sounding partisan rather than principled.

A striking example is the ongoing public debate surrounding Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, which concerns the removal of judges and other high public officers. While divergent interpretations in law are to be expected, what is troubling is the frequency with which these arguments reflect partisan political bias rather than objective, reasoned analysis. Even more concerning is that some of these arguments are advanced by constitutional law lecturers — raising the important question of whether our faculties are equipping students with the tools to reason independently and ethically, especially in politically charged contexts. Granted, lawyers know the law best; but once they move from merely reciting statutes to applying them to real-world facts, logical and deductive reasoning becomes indispensable. It is in this transition that weaknesses often become evident — and where public scrutiny of legal reasoning truly begins.

This concern is not limited to media commentary. As a frequent observer in Ghanaian courtrooms, I have witnessed firsthand how some lawyers — including those considered “senior lawyers” — struggle with coherence and logical reasoning during open court proceedings. Their submissions can appear disorganized or unconvincing, prompting judges to ask pointed questions like, “How many years have you been at the Bar?” Such moments are not only embarrassing but also damaging to professional credibility, especially when lawyers are publicly “dressed down” in front of their clients. These instances reflect more than a lack of knowledge; they expose a deficiency in the training of clear, disciplined thought — a shortfall that legal education must urgently address if the profession is to retain its dignity.

This trend is slowly eroding the long-standing respect accorded to the legal profession. If lawyers — whose voices ought to reflect depth, balance, and thoughtful reasoning — cannot demonstrate these qualities, the public is left to wonder, “Eyi so ye lawyer?” meaning, “Is he also a lawyer?”

When The Bench Reflects the Same Problem

These concerns are not confined to the Bar; they extend to the Bench. Court judgments — especially those emanating from the Supreme Court — should exemplify legal clarity and rigorous reasoning. Yet, in recent years, certain decisions have baffled the average Ghanaian. A particularly striking example was the ruling that “a birth certificate is not a form of identification.” While lawyers may justify this conclusion on technical grounds, to the ordinary mind, it defies common sense. In a previous article, I argued that while the Court may have had valid reasons within the narrow context of voter registration, the broader pronouncement — that a birth certificate does not constitute identification — was deeply problematic and unlikely to stand the test of time. Globally, birth certificates are universally accepted as primary proof of identity and citizenship. By issuing such a sweeping statement, the Court appeared to trade logical coherence for expediency, raising legitimate concerns about the quality of reasoning at the highest levels of our judiciary.

A more recent example can be found in the widely publicized case of Republic v. Kwame Baffoe (Abronye). In that ruling, the presiding judge denied bail while invoking George Orwell’s Animal Farm and quoting former Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe. This decision attracted sharp criticism from both legal practitioners and the general public — including the Ghana Bar Association — who questioned whether such political and literary references had any place in a judicial ruling. To many, the reasoning felt more rhetorical than judicial, casting further doubt on the soundness of judgment from the Bench.

It is true that lawyers are trained to know the law. However, once they shift from citing statutes to applying them to facts, they enter a domain where logic, critical thinking, and deductive analysis are vital — and not the exclusive preserve of lawyers. When judicial reasoning appears muddled, inconsistent, or overly rhetorical, the layperson is quick to challenge it.

These examples reveal a deeper issue: while lawyers and judges may be masters of legal knowledge, the application of that knowledge demands sound judgment and reasoning. When these qualities seem lacking, public confidence in the quality of justice is inevitably shaken. This is not to downplay the complexity of legal interpretation, but rather to highlight a troubling disconnect between legal training and the cultivation of wisdom — a gap that technical expertise alone cannot bridge.

The Reform’s Blind Spot: Why Technical Filters Are Not Enough

The proposed reforms — decentralizing training, expanding access, and introducing a standardized national bar examination — are commendable steps forward. However, they risk reinforcing the same fundamental flaw: an overemphasis on technical legal knowledge as the primary measure of competence. The current entrance examination into the Ghana School of Law already reflects this focus, primarily testing recall of substantive law. If the new system merely replaces one technical filter with another, we risk reproducing the same deficiencies under a different structure.

Part of the problem lies in the flawed assumption that legal education can be modelled after other professions such as accountancy or banking. In those fields, professional bodies like ACCA or ACIB enable candidates to purchase study materials, learn independently, and sit for centralized examinations. Because self-study is viable, the independent examination serves as the key quality assurance mechanism to confirm mastery of the discipline.

Legal education, however, does not function in the same way. One cannot simply self-study to become a lawyer. The legal training process is structured and sequential: it begins with the LLB (covering substantive law) and progresses to professional training in procedural law and practice at law school. At each stage, students are taught, supervised, and assessed. By the time they reach the professional stage, it should already be assured that they have studied the law under structured academic and practical guidance. Subjecting them once more to a centralized examination on legal knowledge adds little value.

What is needed instead is a robust system of quality assurance within both the faculties and professional schools — one that ensures rigorous teaching and transparent, accountable assessments throughout the entire educational process. Without this, the critical gap between knowledge and wisdom will remain unaddressed.

What Ghana needs is not simply more examinations, but a more holistic approach to evaluating who becomes a lawyer. Beyond testing technical proficiency, the system should introduce assessments that measure:

·        Logical reasoning and analytical clarity

·        Ethical orientation and integrity

·        Personality traits and value systems that uphold the profession’s dignity

·        The capacity for independent thought and the ability to apply law with wisdom

The final professional examination should, therefore, move beyond narrow tests of legal knowledge. Instead, it should focus on broader assessments that reflect the full range of qualities essential to the legal profession’s credibility and public trust.

The current professional stage — primarily concerned with procedural law — could be more effectively assessed through continuous evaluation and a well-structured pupillage system. Following this period of practice-based training, candidates could then be required to undergo a final assessment focused not on memorization or technical recall, but on values, reasoning, and ethical decision-making.

A comprehensive case study could serve as the centrepiece of this final evaluation — not a purely legal case study, but one deliberately designed to test:

·        Critical thinking

·        Logical deduction

·        Ethical judgment

·        Application of wisdom

·        Even the personality type of the candidate

Such an assessment would provide a far more accurate picture of a candidate’s readiness for the Bar than another exam limited to substantive or procedural law.

This kind of screening is not intended to exclude capable candidates, but to elevate the standards of the profession. It ensures that those who enter the legal field are not only technically trained but also intellectually mature, ethically grounded, and capable of inspiring public confidence.

The Reform Is Not Bold Enough

It is true that in some jurisdictions, qualifying as a lawyer requires passing technical exit examinations. However, these jurisdictions are not necessarily grappling with the same structural challenges that Ghana faces today, and many have evolved professional systems designed to meet their unique needs. For instance, some maintain a clear distinction between solicitors and barristers. Those who focus on advisory and transactional work can qualify as solicitors without necessarily appearing in court, while those who wish to practice as advocates undergo additional training and examinations to become barristers.

Ghana, by contrast, has merged these two roles. Every lawyer is expected to function as both solicitor and advocate, which significantly raises the stakes of the professional examinations. Consequently, a candidate who has invested nearly eight years in legal education — from university faculty to professional school — may find that failing a single examination renders all that training practically worthless. Such a system not only squanders human capital but also severely limits opportunities for meaningful legal work.

A bolder reform would confront this structural issue directly. If the profession adopted a solicitor–barrister distinction, individuals who do not wish to appear in court — or who do not pass advocacy-focused assessments — could still qualify and work as solicitors. This approach would preserve the value of their legal training, broaden job opportunities, and alleviate the rigid bottlenecks that currently exist.

Even more troubling is that, under both the current and proposed systems, failure at the final stage effectively nullifies years of academic and professional training. A more balanced approach would allow those who have completed both university and professional legal training to practise as solicitors by default. The final examination — regardless of its eventual format — could then serve as the requirement for being called to the Bar as a full advocate.

This tiered model would:

• Prevent the needless loss of trained legal minds.
• Recognize and preserve the value of prior legal education.
• Uphold higher standards for courtroom advocacy without sacrificing the broader integrity of the legal profession.

Conclusion

The ongoing reform of legal education in Ghana is a step in the right direction. Expanding access and decentralizing training are meaningful advancements. However, if we fail to address the deeper issues — the cultivation of wisdom, ethical grounding, and thoughtful reasoning — these reforms will ultimately fall short of their potential.

Ghana does not merely need more lawyers; it needs better lawyers — professionals who combine legal knowledge with wisdom, understood as the ability to apply knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, and insight in making sound decisions and judgments. Such lawyers will not only master the law but also embody the qualities of clarity, humility, and integrity that the public rightly expects from a “learned” profession.

This is why the final assessment of aspiring lawyers should not be yet another technical recall exam. Rather, it should be based on a comprehensive case study model — one that tests reasoning, ethics, judgment, and values. Moreover, truly bold reform may require a fundamental reconsideration of the structure of the legal profession, including the potential separation of solicitors from barristers. At the very least, those who complete both academic and professional legal training should be allowed to practise as solicitors, with the final examination serving as the gateway to becoming a full advocate at the Bar.

Such a tiered approach would:

·        Prevent the waste of valuable human capital

·        Broaden professional opportunities

·        Preserve the high standards expected of courtroom advocates

Only when legal education begins to prioritize these deeper qualities will the title of “learned friend” regain its full meaning. Only then will legal education truly serve the nation — by restoring public confidence in the justice system and strengthening the rule of law as a pillar of Ghana’s democracy.

The real question, then, remains: What exactly does legal education in Ghana intend to impart?