Published February 12, 2026
1. BACKGROUND
Until 2003 when the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) introduced the Bachelor of Law (LL.B) Programme, the then Faculty of Law, University of Ghana (FOLUG) was the sole authorised institution for the running of the LLB Programme in Ghana. The products of FOLUG thus had no difficulties accessing Professional Legal Education (PLE) at the Ghana School of Law (GSL). Indeed, GSL invariably admitted all graduates from FOLUG who had passed the LLB/Bachelor of Arts examination conducted by FOLUG.
The situation changed following the advent of the 1992 Constitution which provided a basis for the conduct and operation of private educational institutions in the country. Under Article 25(2) of the Constitution: “Every person shall have the right, at his own expense, to establish and maintain a private school or schools at all levels and of such categories and in accordance with such conditions as may be provided by Law” (My emphasis).
Regrettably, as in many areas of national endeavour, this right has become the subject of abuse. The end result has been the proliferation of several institutions, Schools and/or Faculties that are running the LLB programme; some with little or no regard for the standards prescribed by the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 63) for the conduct of such programmes – standards prescribed for the conduct of the LL.B programme at the then Faculty of Law, University of Ghana.
The end result has been the production of many an “LL.B graduate” who cannot gain access to GSL, whose three campuses currently are the only authorised institutions for the conduct of PLE. This situation has led to calls for increase of access for these graduates as well as for the many students going abroad to pursue LLB Programmes and who seek admission into GSL in pursuit of PLE. There has thus been a clamour for expansion in facilities available for PLE.
2. THE LEGAL EDUCATION REFORM BILL, 2025
The Legal Education Reform Bill, 2025 (the Bill), inter alia, seeks to address the situation through legislative measures “aimed at increasing access to legal education while maintaining high quality standards in learning and teaching outcomes.”
The Bill proposes to achieve this through the separation of the regulation of legal education from the regulation of the legal profession. In that regard, the Bill “seeks to move the Professional Legal Education and Training Programme from the Ghana School of Law to the Universities” through a Law Practice Training Course (LPTC) which will be offered by accredited Universities to prepare eligible candidates for a National Bar Examination. This project is to be implemented by the Council of Legal Education and Training (CLET) that would assume the role and functions of the Board of Legal Education under the GLC.
* By George A. Sarpong, Esq., Former Director, Ghana School of Law
(2009-2012)
The architecture set up for the attainment of the objective appears to be in order. However, there is much to be desired as regards the foundational basis for execution of the PLE, namely: The LLB stage. This paper examines the Bill, particularly the foundational basis for PLE as set out in the Bill.
The Council for Legal Education and Training Course
The Bill establishes the Council for Legal Education and Training (CLET) as the apex body for the implementation of the reforms. The CLET comprises distinguished members of the Ghanaian Bar and Academia under the general direction of the Attorney General. It comprises:
- The Attorney General and Minister for Justice;
- One person nominated by the Attorney General not below the rank of Chief State Attorney;
- Three representatives of the Bar of not less than 15 years standing;
- A representative of the Ministry of Education and the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC);
- A Law teacher in an accredited Public University of the rank of senior lecturer;
- A Law teacher in an accredited Private University of the rank of senior lecturer or above and;
- A retired Justice of the superior Court.
The Registrar is the secretary to the Board. Absent from this body is a representative of the student body whose voices ought to be heard at the highest level in the scheme of things. Consideration could be given for the inclusion of student representation on the Council. Amongst its functions, the CLET is responsible for the:
- Provisions of accreditation to universities to provide Law Practice Training Course (LPTC);
- Setting standards for accreditation of Universities in collaboration with Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC);
- Undertaking the professional and practical training of persons who seek to become members of the Legal Profession;
- Provision of course of study and practical instruction of law students in accredited universities;
- Advising Government of Ghana (GoG) on matters relating to legal education;
- Recommending national standards and norms for Law Practice Training Course;
- Evaluation of courses of study provided by accredited universities to ensure conformity with standards in other common law jurisdictions with analogous systems of law as Ghana and;
- Control, supervision and administration of the assets of the Council.
The Bill no doubt addresses the functional requirements for the CLET. However, there could be more specifics as regards measures for addressing the challenges for the execution of the LL.B programmes.
Challenges Confronting the Organisational conduct of LL.B Programmes
As I have recounted elsewhere; the situation in some of these [LL.B awarding] institutions is unsatisfactory: low entry requirements, crowded lecture halls, low lecturer student/ratio, absence or poor Library facilities, students combining professional careers with attendance at lectures, and poor quality of teaching, inter alia. Indeed, it is not uncommon to find some lecturers absenting themselves from lectures only to emerge at the tail end of the semester to provide students areas to concentrate on for examination purposes.
Of course, students were passed in these examinations since these institutions could not afford to fail students, an action that would jeopardise the economic fortunes of these institutions since students would shy away from institutions whose students record many failures. Indeed, one Law Faculty/School, in order to meet student requirement for admission to the GSL, in a record 3 weeks, organised a course in environmental law for its graduating class. Predictably, all the students passed!
Surely, such LL. B graduates’ knowledge of the substantive law cannot, apologies to B.J [Da Rocha], be irrebuttably presumed! To make matters worse, some of these institutions both public and private, in the face of their acute limited human and material resources, organize several programmes concurrently, including: part-time, evening, weekend and modular programmes. In the end, they churn out hundreds of half-baked products, numbers for which the GLS is ill equipped to admit.
Indeed, the rather abysmal performance we are witnessing of students in the entrance examinations for admission to the GSL could be ascribed [partly] to the poor quality of students being churned out from the various Law Faculties/Law Schools; as the entrance examination is largely based on the substantive law which students need to pass for the LL.B degree. Any attempt at the reform of professional legal education must address the organisation, scope and content of the LL.B programmes in the various Law Faculties/Law Schools.[1]
The LL.B Programme Under the Bill
Under clause 19 of the Bill, the CLET in collaboration with GTEC is tasked with the responsibility for setting standards for accreditation of Universities and to implement the LL.B programme. In its standards setting role, the Council is to have regard to certain considerations[2].
The actual implementation of the LL.B programme is entrusted to the Deans of the accredited Faculties/Law Schools, assisted by the administrators and account supporting staff. A variety of functions are entrusted to these Deansunder clause 37; namely to:
- act as the chief intermediary between the law degree programme and the university;
- manage the finances and budgets of the law degree programme;
- implement the educational and professional objectives of the law degree programme in a manner not inconsistent with the broader objectives of the mission, vision and strategic plan of the university;
- co-operate with and supervise the activities of members, staff and students of the law degree programme to promote quality teaching and scholarly research;
- ensure the maintenance of the library and other resources of the law degree programme;
- in collaboration with other staff of the law degree programme, plan, implement and administer admission policies and procedures;
- represent the law degree programme locally, regionally, and internationally in all matters involving the law degree programme;
- act as chairperson of the meetings of the law degree programme;
- act as an ex officio member of every committee formed in the law degree programme;
- ensure compliance of the law degree programme with the requirements for accreditation; and
- formulate the curriculum and methods of instruction for the law degree programme and the standards for retention, advancement, and graduation of students, in a manner that is consistent with the standards set under this Act.” (emphasis added).
Leaving these matters to individual Deans[3] could be problematic, as it could result in disparity of standards among the various Faculties/Law Schools; the bane of the present system some of whose challenges have been articulated above. If we seek to reform legal education, then every effort should be made to avoid the recurrence of the defects in the existing regime.
Addressing the Challenges
In that regard, a specific provision needs to be inserted in the Bill, giving the Council powers to provide for the nature, scope and conduct of the LL.B programme in
Ghana; including maintenance of standards. Leaving this function largely to individual Deans as provided for under the Bill[4] would lead to discrepancies in standards in the various schools/faculties whose products aspire to undergo the LPTC upon attaining the LL.B qualification. In this regard, a committee of the Council comprising:
- Deans of Faculties (from both public and private universities);
- Senior academics (from both public and private universities);
- A Representative of the AG;
- Two Representatives from the Bar;
- A Representative from Civil Society
Could be established to be directly responsible to the Council to provide a blue print on the conduct of the LL.B programme in the Universities. The Blue print will then serve as norms, guides or benchmarks for the Deans of the various Schools/Faculties for the conduct of LL.B programmes. The matters to be addressed could include:
- Provision of courses and syllabi for the LL.B programme;
- Examination – contents, formal standards and marking schemes etc….
- Library facilities;
- Classroom facilities/class sizes;
- Teaching methodologies etc…..
The foregoing and matters entrusted to Deans of Faculties could be made the responsibility of the Committee as part of the Blue print for the conduct of LL.B programmes.
Leaving these and other critical matters to be determined by individual Deans would result in varying degrees/standards for the various law Schools/Faculties. There is however the need for uniformity and/or consistency in standards for all LL.B graduates since they all aspire to pursue the LPTC upon graduation.
Regulations based on the blue print, pursuant to the Bill, could then be passed to regulate this and other matters identified as necessary and/or critical for the conduct of the LL.B programme. This could be periodically updated to reflect changes and demands. A system could also be instituted by the Council to ensure the observance of these standards/requirements through periodic inspections/reviews of the courses at these Faculties/Schools.
Faculties/Law Schools should be at liberty to run their individual LL.B programmes. However, if they desire that their students, upon graduation, should enroll on the LPTC, then they must meet these standards set by the Council. Periodic publication of the list of Faculties/Schools whose students are eligible to pursue the LPTC should be published in newspapers for the information and guidance of the public.
The LL.B programme is to be pursued over a 3-year period; same as currently exists. And yet, under the Bill, additional courses under the LPTC programme are to be taught
at the Faculties/Law Schools. If it is intended to teach those LPTC course at the Faculties/Law Schools then the period of study should be extended and/or in the alternative, the duration of the LPTC programme could be extended for enough time to teach these courses.
Pupillage
Absent from the Bill is the provision for pupillage. By its very nature, PLE should be conducted in sizeable/manageable groupings that enable students to have personal/direct access to lecturers in the form of tutorials, seminars, moot court etc. This has become impracticable in light of the huge numbers; in some cases, more than 1,000 that are being churned out annually under the current regime for the conduct of PLE. Efforts should thus be made to control the numbers in the classes.
The six months post enrollment pupillage programme should be revamped to ensure that newly enrolled lawyers undertake the mandatory six months pupillage programme in various reputable/accredited Law Institutions/Firms. That would enable many new lawyers become more acquainted with practice and standards at the Bar which unfortunately they are not experiencing under the current regime of mass production of
Lawyers. Indeed, it is said that a lot of these new Lawyers hardly undergo any pupillage before embarking on legal practice; by side stepping the programme and getting favourable recommendation from some Law Firms to enable them obtain their law practice certification.
3. SOME PRACTICAL PROBLEMS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LPTC
Course Duration
The LPTC is to be pursued within one academic year; beginning from September to June of the following year, (see clause 61). This works out to a period of nine months. Having regard to the nature and scope of the course to be pursued during the LPTC, this period is considered rather short. Consideration could thus be given to extending the period to at least a minimum of twelve calendar months.
Course Content and Resources for Implementation
Clause 68 of the Bill provides for the courses required to be pursued and examined under the LPTC: “….civil procedure; including a component of civil procedure that deals with the law of evidence in respect of proof of civil litigation and criminal procedure, including a component of criminal procedure that covers the law of evidence in respect of criminal trials. Ethics and the practice of law, including topics on law practice management, basic book-keeping and professional responsibility and conveyancing and drafting”.
The list is not exhaustive; these are not courses that are offered currently under existing LL.B programmes. Faculties/Schools that seek accreditation to run LPTC would thus have to look outside the Universities for this needed skill. This will no doubt not be an easy endeavour. Indeed, from my personal experience, when tasked by the GLC to establish two campuses at KNUST and Legon for the Professional Law course in 2010, I had to fly some Lecturers from Accra to Kumasi to teach some of the courses. Care should therefore be taken to scrutinize the kind of teaching staff presented by Schools and Faculties for the conduct of the LPTC.
In particular; care should be taken that the same names do not appear in more than one staff list as lecturers for the programme. Invariably, such persons are already engaged full-time in their respective jobs. To add two additional Schools for them to teach would be counterproductive. Indeed, this could result in absenteeism, low attendance at lectures, poor quality teaching etc. in courses that are by their very nature practical and demand close interaction between students and Faculty. Care should thus be taken to ensure that not only high caliber staff are employed; but that these do not spread their tentacles to cover more than one Faculty/School at a time.
Due regard should also be accorded the sizes of classes, student/lecturer ratios, library and tutorial facilities etc. for the conduct of the LPTC. From the manpower situation as borne out of my recounted experience, it might be useful not to rush to implement the programme. Perhaps a pilot programme involving a few selected Faculties/Schools could form an initial basis for the implementation.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The Bill aims, inter alia, at increasing access to legal education while maintaining high quality standards in learning and teaching outcomes through a new Council – CLET – that will assume the role of the Board of Legal Education as conceived.
The composition of the Council does not include representation from the student body as is the practice in contemporary tertiary institutions.
CLET is also bereft of specifics as regards measures for addressing the challenges confronting the conduct of the LL.B programme at the various law Schools and Faculties. Any attempt at the reform of PLE must address the organisation, scope and content of the various law Faculties/Schools.
In that regard, it is proposed that a committee of the Council comprising Deans, Senior Academics, a representative of the AG, the Bar and the Civil Society could be established to be directly responsible to the Council to provide a blue print for the conduct of the LL.B programme in the Universities.
The blue print in the form of regulations pursuant to the Bill (Act) will serve as norms, guides or benchmarks for the implementation of the LL.B programme. The regulations should be periodically updated to reflect changes and demands. A regime of periodic inspections/reviews could also be instituted as quality control measures.
Only Law Schools/Faculties approved by CLET would have their products eligible to enroll on the LPTC programme.
The existing regime of pupillage ought to be revamped as a veritable source for the acquisition and experience for legal practice. Consideration could also be given to increasing the length of the LPTC to twelve months by the minimum.
A major challenge that the new system faces would be availability of the requisite skills/manpower for the implementation of the regime as the subjects to be pursued under the LPTC are not taught at the various Schools/Faculties. This is a monumental hurdle to be addressed for the successful execution of the programme.
Care should be taken to avoid the situation where same persons are employed to teach in various campuses. Perhaps the piloting of the programme rather than its immediate implementation could be adopted to deal with such teething problems prior to its full implementation.
Above all, the introduction of the Bill raises a fundamental issue; if the aim is to increase access of many students to PLE, then why not expand the current facilities available for the conduct of PLE. The GSL has acquired a huge tract of land near UPSA, Legon for such a purpose. Indications are also that Otumfour the Asantehene has donated a large tract of land for a Law School complex, close to the Superior Courts in Kumasi. The provision of such enhanced accommodation/facilities should enable the GSL that has
the requisite skill, experience and manpower for the conduct of LPTC to undertake the assignment.
Creating a Law School/Faculty regime bereft of competencies in the teaching of LPTC courses could be a disastrous misadventure. Serious thought/consideration should thus be given to the proposed arrangement for the conduct of LPTC under the Bill.
[1] G. A. Sarpong, “Reflections on Professional Legal Education in Ghana: An Essay in Honour of Bernard JOAA DA Rocha (2019)”, page 8.
[2] Standards for accreditation of universities. 19. (1) The Council shall, in collaboration with the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission, set standards for the accreditation of universities to offer or provide the Law Practice Training Course. (2) The Council shall, in setting standards under subsection (1), have regard to the availability of (a) library resources that serve teaching, research and other educational objectives of the university, including access to online library resources and hard copy legal materials; (b) a law library that has the following in electronic or hard copy: (i) Ghana Law Reports; (ii) Supreme Court of Ghana Law Reports; (iii) All England Law Reports; (iv) Weekly Law Reports; (v) Queen’s Bench Reports; (vi) King’s Bench Reports; (vii) Chancery Law Reports; (viii) books relevant to the law courses offered in the university; (ix) legislation enacted in the country, including Acts of Parliament, legislative instruments and constitutional instruments; (x) articles and journals on law; and (xi) law dictionaries; (c) an online library source, including LexisNexis, HeinOnline, Westlaw and Law Finder, which is accessible to students at convenient times; (d) requisite physical infrastructure necessary for running the programmes and operations of the university, including a permanent office and classrooms, whether shared with other departments or not, provided that (i) the arrangements do not disrupt the scheduling of lectures; and (ii) the facilities of the university are within a reasonable proximity and accessible to students for a reasonable period of time outside lecture periods; (e) adequate space for administrative and teaching staff, including private offices for senior administrators and full-time teaching staff and a spacious office lounge for part-time teaching staff; (f) a balanced student-lecturer ratio and proportionate class sizes; (g) law lecturers with requisite qualification as determined by the Council; and (h) the requisite technology and the human resources needed to resolve technology-related issues that may arise in the delivery of the educational programme, including a well-equipped computer centre with access to the internet.
[3]Especially those highlighted above.
[4] See clauses 19, 37-59 of the Bill.
