PROFESSOR STEPHEN KWAKU ASARE vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL [2020]DLSC9334

Date	2020-07-28
Suit No.	WRIT NO. J1/01/2020
Citation No.	[2020]DLSC9334

GBADEGBE JSC (PRESIDING)

APPAU JSC

MARFUL-SAU JSC

DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC

AMEGATCHER JSC

KOTEY JSC

OWUSU (MS.) JSC

KOFI BENTIL FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

SYLVESTER WILLIAMS CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY WITH AURIEL ASARE BOATENG PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT

NANA YAW NTRAKWA WITH PAULINA AKOSUA DANSO FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT.

[2020]DLSC9334
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >PROFESSOR STEPHEN KWAKU ASARE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ATTORNEY GENERAL AND GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

WRIT NO.
J1/01/2020&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 28TH JULY,
2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KOFI BENTIL FOR THE
PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>SYLVESTER WILLIAMS,
CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY WITH AURIEL ASARE BOATENG, PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR
THE 1ST DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

NANA YAW
NTRAKWA WITH PAULINA AKOSUA DANSO FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>GBADEGBE
JSC (PRESIDING), APPAU JSC, MARFUL-SAU JSC, DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC, AMEGATCHER JSC,
KOTEY JSC, OWUSU (MS.) JSC<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>MARFUL-SAU,
JSC: - <o:p></o:p>The Plaintiff before us is described in his writ
as a concerned citizen of the Republic of Ghana who is interested in upholding
compliance with the 1992 Constitution and the Rule of Law. In this action he
seeks to invoke our original jurisdiction against 1st and 2nd
Defendants alleging that the 2nd Defendant in particular is engaged
in activities that are inconsistent with Articles 25 (2) and 296 (b) of the
1992 Constitution. What are these activities the subject of Plaintiff’s
complainant? The Plaintiff’s case simply is that the 2nd Defendant
has created a monopoly over the provision of Professional Law Course at the
Ghana Law School in violation of Article 25 (1) (b) and that the distinction
between the Professional Law Course, run by the Ghana School of Law, and the
Academic Law Course, run by approved Universities is arbitrary and a violation
of Article 296 (b) of the 1992 Constitution. Based on these facts the Plaintiff
claims the following reliefs per his writ:-<o:p></o:p>1. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A declaration that the current monopoly
enjoyed by the Ghana School of Law in the provision of Professional and Post-
Law Courses that prepare candidates for the Qualifying Certificate of
Examination violates Article 25(2) of the 1992 Constitution.<o:p></o:p>2. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A declaration that pursuant to Article
25 (2) of the Constitution, accredited public and private universities have the
right, at their own expense, to establish and maintain Law Faculties to offer
the Professional Law Course that prepares students for the Qualifying Law
Certificate of Examination.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A declaration that the distinction
between the Professional Law Course, run by the Ghana School of Law, and the
Academic Law Course, run by approved universities, is arbitrary and capricious
and done only to further the monopoly power of the Ghana School of Law in
violation of Article 296(b) of the Constitution.<o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An order directing the General Legal
Council to provide regulations that allow approved law faculties and other
private institutions to provide the Professional Course, or otherwise integrate
this course in their curriculum, the completion of which entitles students to
take the Qualifying Certificate Examination or Examinations, pursuant to
Section 13 of Act 32.<o:p></o:p>5. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An order of interlocutory injunction to
restrain the Defendants whether by themselves, their agents, assigns, privies,
servants and whomsoever of whatever description from causing the School of Law
to be opened for new students, pending the final determination of the
substantive suit.<o:p></o:p>6. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Any other reliefs that this Court deems
necessary in exercise of its legal and equitable powers.<o:p></o:p>7. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Costs
for any court expenses and counsel fees.<o:p></o:p>8. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An expedited and immediate hearing of
the cause taking into account the significant public interest in a timely
resolution and the necessity of preserving the value of the aforementioned
reliefs.<o:p></o:p>