Introduction
The best briefs tell a story. They have a beginning, a middle, and an end. They answer the question: why should I, the judge, decide for you?
For decades, the image of advocacy in Ghana’s courts has been the lawyer on their feet, making a case with voice, tone, and timing. The courtroom was more like a theatre, and persuasion lived in the spoken word of the lawyer or counsel. The picture is changing, and ever so fast. Across the courts of Ghana, especially the Superior Courts, written submissions are no longer a supplement. They are increasingly the main event. Pre-hearing written submissions and expanded written addresses mean that for many cases, the judge’s first and often only detailed engagement with one’s argument happens on the page, not in the oral exchange. The oral hearing has become a summary, a clarification, a chance to respond – not the primary vehicle for persuasion. This shift matters because it reframes what advocacy actually is. Advocacy is no longer just speaking well. It is writing clearly, structuring arguments logically, and anticipating judicial concerns before a word is spoken in court. For students and young lawyers trained to prioritize oral flair, this is a skill reset. In a paper-heavy courtroom, legal writing is no longer a technical exercise. It is the central act of advocacy. The question is no longer “can you argue?” but “can you make your argument land on the page?”
Traditional dominance of oral advocacy
Historically, oral advocacy has been central to courtroom practice, especially in the common law. Oral advocacy was viewed as a performance skill requiring clarity, persuasion, responsiveness to judges, and mastery of courtroom dynamics. Techniques such as witness-examination and rhetorical delivery were seen as essential to uncovering truth and influencing judicial outcomes. Oral advocacy, undoubtedly has its strengths. It allows real-time interaction with judges and opposing counsel. It enables assessment of witness credibility through demeanour and responses. It further gives advocates the flexibility to adapt arguments dynamically and helps judges test arguments through questioning and immediate clarification. Oral advocacy, however, can become overly lengthy, unfocused, or repetitive and largely contributes to judicial backlog. It is important to understand that lengthy hearings not only delay justice in individual cases but also hinder access for other litigants. The trends reveals that courts are now overburdened, leading to a shift away from oral hearings towards written submissions. In fact, the sharp rise in appellate caseloads and the invocation of the various jurisdictions of the Superior Courts of judicature has accounted for the increased number of cases decided without a single oral argument made or delivered.
Increased dependence of Courts on written advocacy
In recent times, Judges often would request for written submissions, which they would read, form tentative opinions before occasionally firming them through summary procedures which may include concluding or clarificatory oral remarks. Cases, in recent times, are largely decided on written briefs alone. This means that written advocacy is often the decisive factor in litigation outcomes. Poor writing, in today’s court room practice, cannot be salvaged by oral advocacy. Many judges have lamented that the writing quality among lawyers is widely viewed as inadequate. The judges report a serious difficulty in understanding briefs, counsel’s inability to highlight key facts, poor issue identification, weak logical structure, amongst others. All these deficiencies affect the quality of justice delivery. Written advocacy has thus been identified as a major area needing improvement. Research shows that written advocacy occupies only a small portion of the curriculum of many schools. In fact, most schools require little or no writing beyond first year. Rather, the emphasis leans towards oral advocacy and theory. The irony seems to be that a great number of schools of academics recognize the need for written advocacy skills but underinvest in it. There also seems to be little or no structured programs targeting written advocacy as part of continuing legal education for lawyers and practitioners. These gaps leave practitioners without systematic improvement opportunities.
A proposed reform agenda to bolster the move from the podium to the page
The core attitude in the legal profession should be to view written advocacy as central to justice and not secondary to oral advocacy. As part of law school reforms, the expansion of the curriculum should involve more writing-focused courses where students and aspiring lawyers would learn advanced legal writing and advocacy. Also, there should be the strengthening and re-introduction of written advocacy training at the undergraduate level so that students would develop these before law school and only refine them during professional legal training periods. At the professional training level and post qualification phase, it is important that there be institutional collaboration to develop continuing legal education programs focused on legal writing and advocacy through briefs. Overall, there should be a shift from oral advocacy dominance to balanced advocacy competence, with written advocacy as the focus. Written advocacy is indispensable to modern adjudication and should be treated as such.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the move to written arguments is not a reduction of advocacy, but it is evolution. In Ghana’s courts today, the written page carries the weight of persuasion, and clarity has become the most persuasive tool available. For students and young lawyers, this demands a shift in training: less rehearsal for the podium, more discipline in drafting, structure and precision. Those who master legal writing will not just survive the paper-heavy courtroom – they will dominate it. Advocacy has not moved off the page. It has found its most powerful expression there.
God bless!
