GBA sued to break ‘monopoly’ over lawyers’ representation

Supreme Court receives constitutional challenge against Ghana Bar Association’s exclusive powers

A constitutional lawsuit has been filed at the Supreme Court challenging the legal and constitutional monopoly allegedly held by the Ghana Bar Association(GBA) over lawyer representation and involvement in key governance structures.

The suit was jointly filed by the Member of Parliament for South Dayi, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, private legal practitioner Israel Tetteh, and a professional body known as the Ghana Law Society.

Attorney-General, GBA named as defendants

In the suit, both the Attorney-General and the GBA are named as defendants. The plaintiffs are seeking a reinterpretation of the role and recognition of the GBA under the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.

They argue that the Constitution’s references to the “Ghana Bar Association” should not be interpreted as referring exclusively to the current voluntary association known as the GBA. Rather, they say it should be seen as a general term encompassing all legally recognized associations of lawyers in the country.

Challenging GBA’s role in judicial appointments

Key to the lawsuit are several provisions in the Constitution where the GBA is given formal roles — particularly in the appointments of judges and members of judicial bodies. These include:

• Article 153(f) – Appointments to the Supreme Court
• Article 157(1)(c) – Appointments to the Court of Appeal
• Article 201(e) – Representation on the Judicial Council

The plaintiffs argue that granting a single private entity — the GBA — these powers amounts to an unconstitutional monopoly and undermines the principle of equal participation.

Claim of discrimination and infringement of rights

The lawsuit argues that the GBA’s exclusive status infringes on two key constitutional rights:

• Article 17 – Guarantees equality and freedom from discrimination
• Article 21(1)(e) – Protects the right to freedom of association

“Any settlement of constitutional powers, rights, roles or privileges on the current ‘Ghana Bar Association’… forecloses rival associations of lawyers from equal recognition and participation in the public constitutional space,” the writ argues.

Seeking declarations and injunction

The plaintiffs are seeking several reliefs from the Supreme Court, including:

• A declaration that the GBA does not hold an exclusive constitutional mandate over other legal associations.
• An interpretation that the term “Ghana Bar Association” in the Constitution is generic.
• An injunction restraining the current GBA from presenting itself as the sole representative of the legal profession in constitutional matters.

Potential implications for legal governance

If successful, the case could significantly alter the legal governance structure in Ghana, paving the way for multiple legal associations to be recognized in constitutional roles — and potentially ending the decades-long dominance of the GBA in public legal affairs.

The case is likely to draw significant attention from legal professionals, governance advocates, and constitutional scholars, as it raises fundamental questions about institutional representation, equality, and legal pluralism in Ghana’s democratic system.