The case filed this month by Member of Parliament Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor against the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) may appear technical: he asks the Supreme Court to rule that the word “GBA” in the 1992 Constitution does not mean the present, private association alone, but rather any umbrella body of lawyers.

Yet behind the legalese lies a defining battle over power, representation, and whether one private club can hold a constitutional monopoly in a fragile democracy.

What the Constitution Says

The 1992 Constitution name-checks the Ghana Bar Association in some of its most sensitive provisions. For instance, when it comes to the conditions of service of judges of the Superior Courts, the Constitution requires that no changes be made “after consultation with the Judicial Council and the Ghana Bar Association.”

Likewise, in judicial appointments, the President must act in consultation with both the Council of State and the Ghana Bar Association — without which such an appointment would be void. Even in the wider arena of national development planning, the Constitution lists the GBA among the bodies the government should consult.

Interpretation

On its face, the Constitution says “GBA.” Obvious, one might think. But constitutions are not frozen snapshots; they are living documents. When the framers wrote “GBA” in 1992, they were naming the only lawyers’ body in existence at the time.

The question today is whether those words enshrine one private association forever, or whether they stand for any lawyers’ umbrella body capable of representing the profession. To read the Constitution as rigid would risk elevating a voluntary club into a permanent constitutional organ, something unheard of in comparative democracies.

To read it purposively is to recognize that “GBA” was shorthand for representation, not monopoly.

Statute vs. Convention

The General Legal Council (GLC) — established under the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) — is Ghana’s statutory regulator.

It admits lawyers, issues licenses, enforces discipline, and even sends annual practice fee reminders through banks. Payments for licensing are made online directly to the state regulator.

By contrast, the GBA is a private voluntary association, not created by statute, yet it is mentioned repeatedly in the Constitution in relation to judicial appointments, consultations, and service conditions.

This duality means Ghanaian lawyers ask: to whom do we really owe our dues? We cannot practice without the GLC’s license, yet we are told that “consultation with the GBA” is constitutionally required for matters of state.

If the Constitution hard-wires a private association into public functions, it risks what political scientists call state capture: allowing one unelected body to exert disproportionate influence over appointments, commentary, and legitimacy.

A Profession Divided

The GBA has long been accused of lacking teeth, issuing statements but rarely enforcing discipline or leading systemic reform. It recently however condemned the unprecedented removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, breaking with its usual caution in judicial politics. Now, within a month, comes Dafeamekpor’s petition.

While not retaliation against the GBA, this petition may nonetheless be seen as part of the broader political aftershocks of the Chief Justice’s removal — a way of unsettling the old order, shifting influence, and testing institutions. Observers will inevitably ask: is this a principled constitutional challenge, or a well-timed play in anticipation of an NDC administration?

Comparative Lessons

Other jurisdictions offer clarity:

Nigeria: The Nigerian Bar Association is powerful but not constitutionally entrenched. Splinter groups exist, but regulation remains with statutory bodies. The NBA has survived precisely because it has had to persuade, not command.

Kenya: The Law Society of Kenya is statutory; membership is mandatory, but legitimacy flows from Parliament, not constitutional monopoly.

South Africa: The Legal Practice Act created a statutory regulator, while voluntary associations coexist.

United States: Several states have mandatory “integrated” bars, while others allow multiple voluntary associations. Diversity of voice is seen as democratic, not destabilizing.

Nowhere in the common law world is a private association constitutionally locked into public consultation forever.

What Pluralism Would Look Like

If the Court rules that “GBA” means any umbrella body, Ghana would not descend into chaos. Lawyers could form alternative associations, perhaps by specialization (criminal bar, corporate bar, human rights bar) or by philosophy. The state would consult either a council of recognized associations or whichever body commanded majority membership. Far from diluting the profession, this could increase legitimacy, as lawyers would pay dues to bodies they believe represent them, while still being bound by the GLC’s statutory licensing and discipline.

The Stakes

At its core, this case asks: should one voluntary club remain constitutionally enthroned as the sole voice of 15,000 Ghanaian lawyers? Or should the Constitution be read as a living document, recognizing that umbrella bodies may evolve with time?

If the answer is monopoly, Ghana risks entrenching a captured institution — one already criticized for selective statements and political leanings. If the answer is pluralism, Ghana aligns with modern democracies, separating regulation (GLC) from association (any bar body), and preventing the profession from being weaponized by a single gatekeeper.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling will reverberate beyond the courtroom. It will determine not only the GBA’s future but also whether Ghana chooses institutions over monopolies, pluralism over capture. The timing is delicate, the politics sharp. But the principle is simple: no private association, however historic, should wield constitutional monopoly.

For Ghana’s lawyers — and for the democracy they serve — the choice could not be more important.

-

By: Amanda Akuokor Clinton

The writer is an international lawyer and Head of Chambers at Clinton Consultancy