GBA's Statement of Case in suit against Ghana Law Society, Dafeamekpor, another

The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) is the second defendant in the suit initiated by Israel Tetteh, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, and the Ghana Law Society. 

The plaintiffs in this suit are challenging the constitutional recognition, status, and role of “The Ghana Bar Association” under the 1992 Constitution.

The GBA, through its counsel, Ace Anan Ankomah, advances five core points as follows:

1. The Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction Has Been Improperly Invoked

The GBA asserts that the plaintiffs have manufactured a constitutional controversy where none exists.

Citing Ex Parte Akosah and related precedents, the GBA argues that:

There is no genuine interpretative question arising from the constitutional provisions cited.

The Plaintiffs’ case is essentially a disagreement over policy, not a constitutional ambiguity, and thus the court should decline jurisdiction and dismiss the suit at the threshold.

2. The Phrase “The Ghana Bar Association” Is Clear, Precise, and Unambiguous

The GBA insists that constitutional references to “The Ghana Bar Association” use a definite article (“The”) to denote a specific, identifiable, historic professional body of lawyers in Ghana.

Appearing in several provisions in a manner that is deliberate, consistent, and institutional in design and cannot be read as including any other voluntary lawyers’ association or group.

The drafting pattern across the 1969, 1979, and 1992 Constitutions is highlighted as evidence of intentional continuity.

3. Claimed Rival Meanings Are Not Grounded in Any Real Ambiguity

The GBA rebuts the Plaintiffs’ assertion that different interpretations exist that justify invoking Article 130. It argues that merely asserting rival interpretations does not create a constitutional question.

The Plaintiffs’ “rival meanings” amount to subjective preferences, not legitimate ambiguity.

4. A Purposive Interpretation Confirms the Same Outcome

The Association adds that even if the court adopted a purposive interpretative method, the result is unchanged. The GBA emphasises that:

The Constitution assigns certain public, national, representational functions to a professional body.

These functions require an organisation with the stability, credibility, and national footprint that only the GBA possesses.

The framers intentionally designed these functions around “The Ghana Bar Association,” not any group of lawyers.

5. Recognition of the GBA Does Not Violate Equality or Freedom of Association

The GBA argues that:

Article 17 (equality) is not offended because the Constitution may assign distinct roles to different entities when justified by public interest.

Article 21(1)(e) (freedom of association) is not violated because no one is compelled to join the GBA.

Constitutional designation of the GBA for certain roles is an institutional choice, not an infringement of the rights of other lawyer groups.

Conclusion and Relief Sought

The GBA urges the Supreme Court to:

Decline jurisdiction.

Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims as constitutionally baseless, textually unsupportable, and jurisprudentially improper.

The overarching narrative frames the plaintiffs’ case as an attempt to convert political or policy preferences into constitutional litigation, contrary to established judicial discipline.