Introduction

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming institutions across the globe, and the legal profession is no exception. From legal research and document drafting to case management and judicial administration, AI tools offer unprecedented speed and efficiency.

In Ghana, where judicial reforms and access to justice remain ongoing concerns, AI presents both an opportunity and a challenge. This article critically
examines the adoption of AI within Ghana’s legal system, arguing that while AI can enhance justice delivery, it must remain a supportive tool rather than a substitute for human judgment, ethical responsibility, and constitutional governance.

AI and Legal Practice

Technological innovation have historically reshaped professional systems, and the legal profession is no exception. From early mechanisation to digital research databases, each wave of innovation has altered how legal services are delivered.

In contemporary times, Artificial Intelligence (AI) represents the most significant of these transformations, with tools now assisting in legal research, document drafting, predictive analytics, and case management.

For Ghana’s justice system, long characterised by resource constraints, procedural delays, and administrative inefficiencies, AI presents a potential catalyst for reform, promising increased productivity, faster research, streamlined drafting, and improved court administration.

The origins of AI can be traced to the mid-twentieth century, notably Alan Turing’s inquiry into machine intelligence and the Dartmouth Conference at which the term “Artificial Intelligence” was first coined.

While early AI remained largely theoretical, modern AI systems are powerful, widely accessible, and increasingly integrated into everyday professional tasks. This accessibility has amplified their impact on legal practice, making it imperative for lawyers and judges to understand both their capabilities and inherent limitations.

Modern AI systems rely predominantly on machine learning algorithms and neural
networks, enabling them to process vast datasets and generate outputs that often
resemble human reasoning. In legal practice, this capability manifests in tools that summarize case law, draft pleadings, predict litigation outcomes, and suggest relevant authorities.

However, AI does not possess understanding, moral reasoning, or legal consciousness. It identifies patterns rather than interprets justice. Consequently, AI-generated outputs are only as reliable as the data and assumptions on which they are built, data that may be outdated, incomplete, or biased, particularly in jurisdictions such as Ghana where digitised legal datasets remain limited.

This limitation gives rise to significant risks if AI tools are not used wisely. One notable danger is the generation of fictitious cases and authorities, commonly referred to as “AI hallucinations.”

Courts in jurisdictions such as the United States and the United Kingdom have sanctioned lawyers for filing documents containing fabricated citations produced by AI systems without proper verification.

Such incidents underline the broader concern that excessive or unquestioning reliance on AI may undermine core judicial values, including accuracy, fairness, transparency, integrity, and public confidence in the administration of justice.

For Ghana, these developments raise a critical principle: the use of AI does not
diminish professional responsibility; it heightens it. Lawyers remain personally
accountable for the accuracy and integrity of all materials presented to the courts.

Ghana’s legal profession is governed by robust ethical bases under the Legal
Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) and the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and
Etiquette) Rules, 2020 (L.I. 2423), which impose duties of competence, honesty,
diligence, and candour.

The submission of fabricated or misleading authorities whether produced by AI or human misconduct constitutes professional misconduct and threatens the integrity of judicial proceedings. Comparative jurisprudence confirms that the absence of intent to deceive does not excuse negligence; verification of authorities remains a non-delegable duty of legal practitioners.

In the absence of clear regulatory guidance, inconsistent practices may emerge,
undermining public confidence and exposing the justice system to abuse.
AI also presents complex challenges for the law of evidence, particularly in relation to electronic and digital material.

Advances in AI-generated audio, video, and images commonly referred to as deepfakes raise serious concerns about authenticity and reliability. Courts must therefore exercise heightened vigilance in assessing electronic evidence, rigorously applying established rules of relevance, admissibility,
and proof.

While technology continues to evolve, the foundational principles of law of
evidence remain constant and must guide judicial evaluation. Notwithstanding its growing utility, AI cannot replace judges or lawyers within Ghana’s constitutional framework.

Judicial decision-making entails discretion, contextual reasoning, and sensitivity to social realities, qualities that cannot be replicated by algorithms.

The 1992 Constitution vests judicial power in human judges, accountable to constitutional norms and ethical standards. Administrative functions such as the empanelling of judges by the Chief Justice underline the inherently human character of justice delivery. AI may assist administratively, including workload analysis and case-flow management, but it cannot assume judicial authority.

Given the inevitability of AI adoption, the central question is not whether AI should be used, but how it should be used responsibly. Lawyers must treat AI as a supplementary aid rather than an authoritative source. Best practices include
verifying all AI-generated content against primary sources, maintaining professional scepticism, safeguarding client confidentiality, and ensuring that ultimate responsibility for legal work rests with the practitioner, not the machine.

Senior practitioners also bear a duty to train and supervise junior lawyers in the ethical and competent use of AI tools.

Recommendations

Institutional responses are equally critical. The Ghanaian Judiciary and the Ghana Bar Association should develop structured training programmes on AI literacy and ethics through the Judicial Training Institute and Bar Conferences.

Clear guidelines on the permissible use of AI in legal practice would promote consistency and accountability.

Furthermore, existing professional regulatory frameworks particularly
L.I. 2423 and Act 32 should be strengthened and, where necessary, amended to
expressly sanction the submission of fabricated authorities, whether generated by AI or human misconduct.

Legal education regulators should also integrate AI ethics and
digital competence into academic curricula to prepare future lawyers for an AI-
enabled profession.

Conclusion

AI holds significant promise for improving efficiency and access to justice in Ghana. However, its adoption must be guided by ethical discipline, professional
responsibility, and constitutional fidelity. AI is a tool, not an arbiter of justice.

The future of Ghana’s legal system depends not on replacing human judgment with
algorithms, but on ensuring that technology serves the enduring values of fairness, integrity, and the rule of law.