The heated debate surrounding junior counsel appearing before the Supreme Court, reignited by the recent incident involving Serwaa Amihere, has exposed a profound misunderstanding of the structural, statutory, and practical frameworks governing the Ghana Bar. While public commentary has largely fixated on the theatre and aesthetics of the courtroom encounter, much of the ensuing analysis suffers from fundamental misapprehensions that distort the reality of legal practice in Ghana. To advance a constructive discourse, we must clearly decouple raw legal entitlement from systemic professional maturity.

Why the Pupillage?

It is for good reason that an individual does not become an operational courtroom advocate the moment they are called to the Bar. Such immediate, unfettered practice is not even permissible under the statutory architecture of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32).

The jurisprudence firmly settled by our Court of Appeal is that pupils do not possess an independent right of audience. A person newly called to the Bar, while technically a solicitor of the Supreme Court, remains a lawyer in embryo regarding independent practice. They cannot legally act as a solicitor, sign legal processes, or appear independently in court until they have satisfactorily completed their mandatory pupillage and been issued a valid solicitor’s license.

The purpose of this practical training threshold is obvious: the law can be a dangerous tool to wield by a novice without supervision.

Regrettably, current commentary unnecessarily muddies waters that are already perfectly clear by treating "seniority" as an elastic rhetorical label.

•      Statutory Milestone: Under Act 32, a minimum of seven years post-call is explicitly required before a lawyer is legally qualified to serve as a pupil master and supervise a junior practitioner.

•      Institutional Convention: Beyond this, established Bar conventions explicitly demarcate seniority at 10 years post-call upwards.

These are objective statutory and institutional milestones, not matters for subjective debate. Yet, seniority certainly means more than a mere accumulation of years; it implies a depth of institutional wisdom.

Hindsight and the Crucible of Practice

Once these statutory boundaries are properly aligned, the true issue emerges: the debate is not about entitlement, but about maturity.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ famous maxim, that “the life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience,” is not a cliché. It is a reality that can only be fully appreciated through the rear-view mirror of active, sustained practice. Early in my own career, I was fortunate. I won substantive motions within the first and second weeks of my call - long before the Court of Appeal definitively settled the restriction on pupils. Within two years, I was successfully litigating full trials against seasoned, senior counsel.

Yet, looking back after some 16 years in the pits of the court, I readily admit how much I simply did not know about the terrain I was navigating. Winning a case early in one's career is often a testament to meticulous preparation or an overwhelmingly favourable brief; it is not synonymous with systemic mastery of the craft.

The Supreme Court is not an experimental training ground. It is a crucible of constitutional interpretation and appellate jurisprudence. The rules of engagement at the apex court demand an extensive depth of case law analysis, acute procedural rigour, and a seasoned understanding of judicial policy.

When the apex court, through the observation made by His Lordship Justice Tanko Amadu in the instant case, signals its discomfort with junior counsel appearing without senior leadership, it is not indulging in elitism. It is invoking its inherent jurisdiction to ensure that it is effectively assisted by its officers and that the high stakes of litigants are adequately protected.

A Tradition of Bench-to-Bar Mentorship

Far from being a hostile terrain, the bench has historically been a sanctuary for young lawyers. I know as a matter of fact that the vast majority of our judges are incredibly accommodating of newly enrolled counsel. Many regularly go out of their way to actively guide, assist, and protect young lawyers as they find their feet in courtroom practice.

Indeed, it is a poetic irony that this observation came from Justice Tanko Amadu. When he sat as a High Court judge in the Commercial Court, His Lordship was the very definition of a supportive jurist. He took a keen interest in many young practitioners, including myself, offering immense encouragement and guidance that shaped our early careers.

His intervention at the apex court must therefore be understood not as an assault on young lawyers, but as an expression of the same deep judicial mentorship he has always practiced—a reminder that the highest court requires the highest level of prepared advocacy.

Bridging the Threshold

The solution to the waning quality of advocacy in our courts does not lie in erecting extralegal, restrictive barriers that stifle young talent or create an artificial, two-tiered Bar. A licensed practitioner who has successfully outgrown pupillage possesses the undeniable legal right to cross the threshold.

However, exercising that right at the highest level requires humility and institutional guidance. The legal profession is historically built on a strict mentorship model. Formal qualification merely opens the courthouse door; it is sustained, post-pupillage practice under the wing of seasoned seniors that teach a lawyer how to walk through it. The current debate must shift its focus away from raw entitlement and centre firmly on reinforcing the structural mentorship required to preserve the sanctity of our apex court.

A Call to the Bar

To Senior Counsel

Thrusting a junior with a mere year of practice alone into the apex court, regardless of how exceptional they may be, is not just ill-advised; it is an affront to the hallowed traditions we are bound to preserve, especially in these turbulent times. We need look no further than the interns and pupils under our current charge to realise that the burden of mentorship has become significantly more demanding.

To Junior Counsel

Ours is a conservative tradition - one that demands not only excellence in practice, but the cultivation of a character worthy of service. It is a character rooted in a lawyer's four-fold duty to the court, the profession, the client, and the public. Exercise restraint and sober judgment; resist the urge to rush to social media to broadcast your courtroom exploits.

My name is Samson Lardy Anyenini. I hope my reflections on the Serwaa Amihere incident and Justice Tanko Amadu’s call for advocacy mastery serves a useful purpose.