Former Ghana Bar Association President Yaw Acheampong Boafo has launched a scathing critique of Ghana’s legal education reforms, arguing that the country is now training lawyers in a manner that, in his view, conflicts with existing law.
Boafo made the remarks while discussing the reforms to Ghana’s legal education system, questioning the legal basis for some of the structures and processes introduced under the new framework.
‘We are training lawyers contrary to the law’
According to Boafo, the controversy is not simply about whether one agrees with the current system.
“Currently, we are training lawyers contrary to the law,” he said.
He argued that it is possible to pursue what may be considered a legitimate objective through procedures that do not comply with the applicable legal framework.
Boafo said the push for reforms came largely from individuals outside the established legal-education system and alleged that professionals within the system were sidelined during the process.
Questions over the statutory body
A central part of Boafo’s criticism concerns the institutional arrangements created under the reforms.
He argued that although legislation has created a statutory body, the body has not yet been formally established in the manner required, while powers associated with it have nevertheless been exercised.
According to him, the Chief Justice and the Attorney General have assumed powers belonging to an institution that, in his assessment, has not yet been properly established.
‘Created a pre-bar course, accredited institutions illegally’
Boafo also questioned the legal basis for the introduction of a pre-Bar course and the accreditation of institutions involved in professional legal training.
He contended that these steps were taken without the necessary legal foundation, describing the situation as an example of the law being displaced for the sake of administrative convenience.
His argument raises a fundamental question for Ghana’s legal education system: can reforms designed to produce more lawyers be implemented before all the institutional and statutory requirements are fully in place?
A warning about the message being sent
Boafo warned that the implications could go beyond the immediate dispute over legal education.
In his view, training prospective lawyers through processes he considers unlawful sends a troubling message to the very people who are being prepared to practise and uphold the law.
He argued that if aspiring lawyers see institutions themselves disregarding statutory requirements, it could undermine the principle that legal rules must be followed even when doing so is inconvenient.
The bigger debate over Ghana’s lawyers
The controversy comes amid a broader debate over whether Ghana has enough lawyers to meet growing demand for legal services.
Judicial discussions have recently highlighted concerns about the number and distribution of practising lawyers across the country. The Judiciary reported that Justice Kweku Tawiah Ackaah-Boafo told Parliament’s Appointments Committee that Ghana had about 11,000 lawyers as of May 2025, with approximately 8,000 practising. He argued that expanding legal education could help address gaps in access to legal representation, while cautioning that quality must be protected.
That creates a difficult policy balance: Ghana needs sufficient numbers of properly trained lawyers, but questions over the legal and institutional framework governing their training remain contentious.
Reform versus legality
Boafo’s intervention therefore puts the spotlight on a fundamental issue at the heart of Ghana’s legal-education reforms.
The debate is not merely about how many lawyers Ghana should train. It is also about who has the legal authority to train them, under what institutional framework, and whether every step of the process complies with the law.
His remarks are his assessment of the current legal-education arrangements; they do not by themselves establish that the relevant institutions or processes are legally invalid.
For Yaw Boafo, the central concern is clear: Ghana cannot credibly train future lawyers to uphold the law if the system responsible for training them is itself operating outside the legal framework.
