A Human Rights Court has dismissed an application for interlocutory injunction on the entrance examination of the Ghana School of Law tomorrow, July 14, 2017.
Eleven LLB graduates filed the application essentially praying the court to stop the examination on the basis that the Supreme Court on June 22, 2017 declared the examination and its accompanying interview “unconstitutional”.
Arguing in court Thursday, lawyer for the applicants Kwaku Ansa-Asare said the conduct of the examination by the General Legal Council would amount to carrying out an illegal act in breach of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.
However, the lead lawyer for the General Legal Council, Kisito Beyou contended that the seven-member Supreme Court panel presided over by Justice Jones Dotse in its judgement gave specific consequential orders that gave legitimacy to the conduct of the July 14 entry examination.
In delivering his ruling, Justice Anthony Yeboah noted that the applicants have not demonstrated that they have anything to lose if the examination takes place.
On this grounds, the case has been dismissed, Justice Yeboah ruled.
In a writ, the Concerned LLB Graduates said “the admission criteria imposed by the Council in terms of an entrance examination and an interview for admission into the Ghana School of Law since 2015 contravene the provisions of Act 32 and L.I. 1296.”
They insist the GLC must give them automatic admission into the Ghana School of Law.
“A further declaration that plaintiffs and persons with the requisite qualification in terms of law (i.e. Act 32 and L.I. 1296) automatically qualify for admission into the Ghana School of Law. An order of court setting aside the unlawful criteria complained off as illegal and unconstitutional and an infringement upon the plaintiff’s fundamental human rights enshrined in the 199 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.
“A declaration that allowing the defendant-council to administer the entrance examination on Friday, 14th July, 2017 would amount to a grant of immunity from the consequences of breaching sections 13 and 14 of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32), Regulations 2 and 3 of the Professional Law Course Regulations, 1984 (L.I. 1296) and articles 11(7), 23, 296 (a) and (b) and 2987 (b) of the 1992 Constitution,” the writ added.
