Demands for a sweeping reform of the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) are intensifying as prominent legal scholar Prof. Stephen Kwaku Asare has challenged the deeply rooted constitutional privileges granted to the GBA, a voluntary professional organization for lawyers in Ghana.
In his bold critique, Prof. Asare argued that while the GBA has historically championed judicial independence and democratic principles, its privileged position in Ghana’s constitutional framework is undemocratic and ripe for revision.
“Over the years, the GBA has played a yeoman’s role in the advancement of democracy. It has stood up for the rule of law, judicial independence, and civil liberties when it was neither easy nor popular to do so.”
Prof. Stephen Kwaku Asare
However, he insisted that such contributions—though commendable—do not justify the disproportionate constitutional entrenchment the GBA currently enjoys.
He lamented that a private voluntary association like the GBA, no matter how historically significant, should not wield unchecked influence in public governance.
The heart of the issue lies in the GBA’s formal embedding in the 1992 Constitution across at least ten critical governance areas, thereby granting it authority no other professional body—be it doctors, engineers, or journalists—can claim.
GBA Reform Debate Gathers Steam
Prof. Asare laid out the specifics of this problematic entrenchment. From the Judicial Council to the Police and Prisons Councils, from the Lands Commission to the Council of State, the GBA nominates or appoints representatives with constitutionally sanctioned power.
This exclusivity, according to Prof. Asare, is unparalleled.
He highlighted several constitutional provisions that grant the Ghana Bar Association significant influence.
These include its representation on the Council of State under Article 70(2)(d), two seats on the Judicial Council as outlined in Article 153(f), a nominee on the National Media Commission under Article 166(1)(a)(i), and a nominee to the Lands Commission pursuant to Article 259(a)(ii).
“This unprecedented level of entrenchment grants a private, voluntary association powers of public nomination and influence that no other professional body enjoys.”
Prof. Stephen Kwaku Asare
The problem, he argued, lies in the illusion of universality. He pointed out that the GBA is not a public body. It is not established by statute, and its leadership is internally elected.
Moreover, not all licensed lawyers in Ghana are active GBA members. Yet, the Constitution treats it as the singular voice of the legal profession.
This, Prof. Asare argued, violates democratic tenets by creating a monopoly of voice, blocking alternative legal perspectives, and disregarding lawyers outside the GBA. “It disrupts parity with other professions… and creates an unjustifiable hierarchy.”
It also allows a private body to meddle in public matters like judicial appointments and media oversight—areas that should be guarded by public accountability and plural representation.
Democratic Overhaul Of GBA Representation Suggested
To address this imbalance, Prof. Asare proposed a bold reform to amend all constitutional references to the Ghana Bar Association and replace them with a provision for “a representative elected by all licensed legal practitioners in accordance with law.”
He argued that this change will empower every licensed lawyer with voting rights irrespective of GBA membership, enhance transparency and accountability, restore equal standing among professional groups, and dismantle the monopoly of a single association over public legal authority.
In his proposed model, an independent electoral roll of lawyers in good standing—maintained by the General Legal Council (GLC)—would form the basis of fair elections for representatives to constitutional bodies.
The process would include open nominations, universal suffrage for all licensed lawyers, term limits, and transparent, auditable election outcomes.
“Universal Voting: All licensed legal practitioners will be eligible to vote, ensuring that no group is disenfranchised based on voluntary membership. Voting can easily be automated with strong electoral controls and an audit trail.
“Transparent Outcomes and Term Limits: Election results will be published and independently verified. Representatives will serve fixed terms and may be subject to recall mechanisms if they lose professional confidence.”
Prof. Stephen Kwaku Asare
Prof. Asare gave a practical example: if the Lands Commission requires a legal representative, it should no longer be an appointee of the GBA, but the result of a transparent election among all lawyers in Ghana.
The chosen representative would then speak for the entire legal profession, not just a subset loyal to a private body.
While acknowledging the past contributions of the GBA, Prof. Asare insisted that democratic legitimacy, not legacy or exclusivity, should be the criterion for constitutional representation.
“The Ghana Bar Association deserves respect for its historical role, but constitutional representation must be earned through democratic legitimacy, not inherited through legacy or protected by exclusivity.”
Prof. Stephen Kwaku Asare
He closed his critique with a clear vision: “Let every lawyer have a voice. Let legal representation be determined not by membership, but by mandate.”
In an era where democratic institutions are under scrutiny, Prof. Asare’s call for GBA reform speaks to a broader need for equality, transparency, and pluralism in professional governance.
The time may have come for the legal fraternity to democratize its representation—and, by extension, deepen Ghana’s constitutional integrity.
READ ALSO: IOCs Dominate Ghana’s Upstream Sector, PIAC Report Reveals
