INTRODUCTION

There is no ambiguity in the Legal Education Act, 2026 (Act 1170). In fact, there is none. What Ghanaians have been saddled with is a misreading of the law resulting in misinterpretations by persons who have voluntarily taken it upon themselves to help Ghanaians appreciate what is in the new law.

Unfortunately, whether deliberately or sheer ignorance, the self-appointed individuals seeking to explain the law to Ghanaians have, regrettably, ended up feeding them with misleading claims. The issue that has come up so far since President Mahama assented to Act 1170 is whether the law has retained the infamous entrance exams or it has abolished it? This article provides a contextual meaning to the question posed by proving the intention of the political promise which has eventually led us to Act 1170.

If Act 1170 has indeed retained entrance exams, then President Mahama and his National Democratic Congress would have deceived Ghanaians. Indeed, if this were the case, then there would be no need for the new law. It would then mean that the new law has maintained the status quo where LLB holders must compete for limited slots to be admitted to Ghana School of Law (GSL) to read the Professional Law Course through entrance exams.

MANIFESTO PROMISE

To answer the question whether Act 1170 has retained or abolished entrance exams, it is important to examine what occasioned the need for legislative reform. In 2020, the NDC at page 74 of its manifesto promised to reform and expand access to professional legal education by granting accreditation to certified law faculties to run the professional law course. The NDC and John Mahama lost that election. Then in 2024, the NDC repeated the same promise on page 102 of its manifesto, and this time round they won the election.

A careful reading of the NDC's 2020 and 2024 manifestos clearly shows that the Party did not explicitly state it would abolish entrance exams. Rather, the reforms the Party promised would result or were intended to abolish the obnoxious entrance exams. This is because, when faculties are accredited to run the professional law course, a time would come when there would be limited LLB holders to be admitted into Professional Law Course.

So, the intent of the law is to expand access where LLB holders could choose at will which institutions to read the Professional Law Course. An understanding of the above would help us cure the erroneous narrative being pushed ferociously that Act 1170 has not abolished entrance exams.

The Act is not limited to Professional Law Course. It encompasses everything relating to legal education - from the starting point of entry into LLB, to Law Practice Training (LPT) and to the National Bar Exams. Each of these divisions have elaborate provisions covering the various processes required to scale over it.

LLB ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Section 45 has a provision on LLB titled Admission to Law Programme. There is also a subtitle labelled Admission examination and entrance standards. Section 45(1)(b) provides that "an institution that runs a LAW PROGRAMME shall determine standards of admission through a fair and transparent ENTRANCE examination..." (emphasis is mine).

To be clear that section 45 covers only LLB admissions, section 45(2) starts with the introductory statement "despite subsection (1), a person qualifies to undertake a BACHELOR OF LAWS PROGRAMME if..."(emphasis is mine). This provision then further states that there are two routes to reading LLB - either with WASSCE or first degree (post first degree LLB).

To makes things clearer and situate it in proper context, section 45(3) then tells us how LLB holders would be admitted to read the LPT in the following words "the minimum entry requirement for admission to read the Professional Law Practice Training shall be determined and published by the Council and shall be binding on all institutions".

In essence, what section 45(3) has done is to draw attention to the fact that the criteria for reading LLB is different from the LPT. With this explanation, it is settled that section 45(1) (a-b) and (2) cover LLB and not applicable to LPT.

PROFESSIONAL LAW COURSE ADMISSION REQUIREMENT

Whatever the minimum entry requirement to do LPT is, as stated in section 45(3), is yet to be published by the Council. Indeed, the Council has not yet been constituted to come up with that. So, for now, none of us know the LPT requirements. However, section 62 (1) gives us a clue to what the requirements would be in the following words "a person who holds a Bachelor of Laws degree shall undergo Law Practice Training in order to qualify to sit the National Bar Examination"

The sole requirement to read LPT, according to section 62(1), is LLB. For ease of reference, the process as we have considered so far is that - a prospective student must go through entrance exams to be admitted to LLB then use that LLB to gain admission to read LPT.

Take note that the essence of the Act based on the NDC’s manifesto is not admission requirement for LLB but LPT. In fact, for LLB admissions in Ghana, there is no problem with access. The issue with access which the Act sought to cure is the Professional Law Course. This explains why the Act states clearly in section 45 (1) that faculties may use entrance exams route or any other process to admit students to read LLB.

BINDING RULES

In respect of LPT, however, the Act gives the Council authority under section 45(3) to come up with entry requirements for certified faculties and such requirements "shall be binding on all institutions". Section 45(3) was enacted to disable certified institutions from setting their own requirements for admission to read LPT.

If section 45(3) had not been enacted, accredited institutions would have the luxury to determine how LLB holders should be admitted to read the LPT. In this case, an institution could decide to use entrance exams to determine who qualifies to read LPT. Therefore, giving the Council mandate to impose requirements on institutions is to ensure that the requirements are uniform. In other words, same requirements for all accredited institutions.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LLB AND LPT ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The Act cleverly differentiates between LLB admission requirements and LPT admission requirements. In the case of LLB admissions under sections 45(1) (a-b) and (2), the institutions must determine their own admission requirements which then means that the requirements would not be uniform. In the case of LPT admission requirements under sections 45(3) and 62, it must be done by the Council and imposed on the institutions as binding rules to make it uniform.

What has occasioned an erroneous claim that the use of entrance exams in section 45(1)(b) is applicable to both LLB and LPT admissions is the meaning given to LAW PROGRAMME in section 89. It reads "law programme includes the Bachelor of Laws degree and Law Practice Training". It has been argued that insofar as the definition of Law programme includes LLB and LPT, then entrance exams as used in section 45 extend to LPT. With due respect to those who hold this view, this interpretation is extremely problematic and cannot stand.

Section 89 starts with the introductory statement "In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires..." What this means is that, even though section 89 has given general definition to terms, where the context within which a word is used differs from the definition it has been given in section 89, the contextual meaning must prevail. The introductory part of section 89 may be considered a proviso which is an operative part of the Act. What a proviso does is to create conditions and limitations for a section in the statute.

What the opening statement to section 89 has done is to create a condition for defining LPT and not limit it to the definition in section 89. So, what then is the context within which LPT is used in the Act which makes the meaning different from the definition given to law programme in section 89? The answer lies in section 45(3) and 62.

Not to be repetitive, these two provisions make it clear that the Council would enact binding requirements for institutions to use for admission to the LPT, and the general requirement for entry into LPT is LLB. Thus, while entry requirement to read LLB is determined by the various institutions, entry requirement to read LPT is determined by the Council which has been outlined in section 62(1) of which LLB has been stated as the sole criterion.

CONCLUSION

The difference in admission requirements for LLB and LPT is enough evidence to conclude that the definition given to Law programme is not applicable to LPT. What even makes it more glaring is that, when the yet-to-be constituted Council accredits multiple institutions including GSL to run the LPT, there would be no backlog of LLB holders to warrant entrance exams.

Entrance exam was introduced because of access and once we all admit that Act 1170 has expanded access, then the major problem has been resolved. Once this has been done, the ultimate purpose of the Act has been achieved. This ultimate purpose is the abolishment of entrance exams as basis for determining who qualifies to read LPT.