A private legal practitioner has filed an interlocutory injunction seeking to restrain the operations of Ghana Law Society, from holding itself out as a professional body of lawyers.
The action filed on Friday, January 23, 2026 by Yaw Aning Boadu Esq., is premised on his substantive writ challenging “the legality of the purported registration and accreditation” of the Ghana Law Society, a new professional body that appears to be a rival association to the Ghana Bar Association.
The Plaintiff, named the Ghana Law Society as the first Defendant, the Office of the Registrar of Companies as 2nd Defendant and General Legal Council, the body that regulates the legal profession as the 3rd Defendant.
The application is praying the Court for the “an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st Defendant/Respondent, whether by itself, its executives, officers, members, or privies, from holding itself out as a registered or accredited professional body of lawyers, or from issuing, purporting to issue, or regulating practising licences, chamber licences, or pupillage licences, pending the final determination of this suit upon grounds stated in the accompanying affidavit in support and for any further orders) as this Honourable Court may deem fit.”
The Application has been fixed for February 5, 2026 for hearing.
Reliefs
In his substantive writ, he is seeking four major reliefs – a declaration that the registration of the 1st Defendant (Ghana Law Society) by the 2nd Defendant (Office of the Registrar of Companies) as a body of persons trained and qualified in the legal profession is illegal.
He is also asking for “an Order directed at the 2nd Defendant to expunge the 1st Defendant from the Registrar of Professional Bodies.”
The third relief is for “an Order directed to 3rd Defendant (General Legal Council) to withdraw and expunge any purported accreditation, approval, or recognition granted to the 1st Defendant.”
With his last relief, he is seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, its executives and members from holding themselves out as a registered or accredited professional body of lawyers.”
READ: Menzgold case: I intend to assign lawyers to each accused – NAM1 tells Court
Affidavit in Support
In an affidavit in support of the motion for an interlocutory injunction, the Plaintiff said in or about January 2026, he caused a Writ of Summons to issue out against the Defendants, challenging the legality of the purported registration and accreditation of the 1st Defendant/Respondent as a professional body of lawyers.
He said, on 2nd January, 2026, “there was a wide circulation on social media and other public platforms of a notice purported to have emanated from the Executive Council of the 1st Defendant/Respondent announcing its formal launch as a professional body of lawyers scheduled for 26th January, 2026, at the International Press Centre.”
The Plaintiff averred that, the said notice further represented that the “1st Defendant/Respondent had been duly registered by the 2nd Defendant/Respondent, accredited by the 3rd Defendant/Respondent and had capacity to issue practising licences, chamber licences, and pupillage licences…”
These representations he said, “are false, misleading, and unlawful, as the 1st Defendant/Respondent has not satisfied the mandatory statutory requirements governing the registration of professional body.”
It is the case of the Plaintiff that, “the requirement of the law is that a professional body may only be registered where it represents not less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the persons trained and qualified in the profession concerned.”
He contended that, “a search at the 2nd Defendant/Respondent’s office revealed that the membership strength of the 1st Defendant/Respondent at the time of its purported registration was barely one percent (1%) of the persons trained and qualified in the legal profession in Ghana.”
He argued that, notwithstanding this fundamental defect, “the 1st Defendant/Respondent continues to hold itself out as a duly registered and accredited professional body of lawyers, in breach of statute.”
“That the purported registration and accreditation of the 1st Defendant/Respondent by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Respondents respectively, is an affront to the statutory and regulatory framework governing the legal profession in Ghana and any acts of the 1st Defendant/Respondent consequent upon the said registration constitute a continuing illegality.
“That unless restrained by this Honourable Court, the 1st Defendant/Respondent will persist in holding itself out as a professional body of lawyers and purport to issue licences, thereby creating confusion, undermining regulatory authority, and occasioning irreversible damage to the administration of justice.
“That damages will not be an adequate remedy for the harm likely to be occasioned by the continued unlawful conduct of the 1st Defendant/Respondent, as the injury complained of is regulatory, institutional, and affects the integrity of the legal profession.
“That the Plaintiff/Applicant has raised serious and substantial issues of law to be tried, particularly concerning statutory compliance, ultra vires acts, and continuing illegality.
“That the balance of convenience tilts heavily in favour of the Plaintiff/Applicant, as the grant of the injunction would merely restrain unlawful conduct, whereas a refusal would permit the perpetuation of an illegality.
“That the grant of this application will preserve the status quo ante pending the effectual and final determination of the substantive suit.
“That in the circumstances, it is just, equitable, and convenient for this Honourable Court to exercise its discretion in favour of the Plaintiff/Applicant by granting the interlocutory injunction sought,” he submitted.
Below is a copy:
Source: Starrfm.com.gh
