There is something deeply revealing about the growing number of Ghanaians who are willing to take their most intimate marital problems to radio and television studios.

For some, the decision to appear on programmes such as Auntie Naa’s Oyerepa Afutuo appears to offer a quicker, more accessible route to resolving disputes than consulting a lawyer or pursuing formal proceedings.

Husbands accuse wives of infidelity. Wives complain about neglect, financial abandonment, and alleged betrayal. Relatives enter the debate, private disagreements become public confrontations, and listeners are invited to form opinions about relationships they know only through one side of a story or a carefully presented broadcast.

The popularity of these programmes raises an uncomfortable question: have some Ghanaians become more comfortable seeking public sympathy than professional advice when their marriages are in trouble?

The answer is not as simple as blaming couples for going on air. Their choices may reveal deeper problems involving the cost of legal services, limited understanding of the law, mistrust of formal processes and the appeal of having a prominent presenter intervene.

Nevertheless, a distinction must be drawn between seeking help with a relationship and seeking justice under the law.

Auntie Naa's appeal is understandable

It would be unfair to dismiss the role of Auntie Naa and other broadcasters who have created platforms for people to discuss family problems.

For someone who feels ignored by a partner, a radio programme may provide an opportunity to be heard. A presenter can ask difficult questions, challenge inconsistencies and encourage family members to help settle a dispute.

In some circumstances, an informal discussion may prevent a disagreement from escalating. Where both parties freely participate and the issue is suitable for mediation, a structured conversation can help them identify common ground.

But the fact that a programme attracts an audience or produces an emotional on-air agreement does not establish that the underlying problem has been resolved.

A husband who apologises on radio may return home to the same behaviour. A spouse who promises financial support may fail to provide it. A couple who agree to reconcile may still have unresolved questions about property, maintenance or the welfare of their children.

The public may move on to the next story, but the people involved must continue living with the consequences.

The lawyer is not the enemy

One troubling assumption behind the debate is that lawyers are necessarily expensive, confrontational and interested only in prolonging disputes.

That perception deserves scrutiny

A competent family lawyer does not simply take a client to court. The lawyer can explain the available options, advise on the strength of a case, negotiate an agreement, identify legal risks and help determine whether formal proceedings are necessary.

In suitable cases, legal advice and alternative dispute resolution may help parties avoid a lengthy courtroom battle. Where a dispute cannot be settled, legal representation can help protect the client's interests.

Ghana's Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367) provides the legal framework for divorce and related matrimonial matters. It addresses issues including financial provision, property settlement and child custody. A radio presenter cannot exercise the court's statutory authority to dissolve a marriage or issue the relevant orders.

That distinction matters because a marital dispute is not always just a disagreement between two people. It may involve children's welfare, financial obligations, ownership interests and enforceable rights.

An emotional conversation may help establish what the parties want. It cannot, by itself, determine every legal question that follows.

Are lawyers charging too much?

This is one of the most important questions in the debate, but it must be answered with evidence rather than assumptions.

Published Ghanaian legal fee schedules offer an indication of the potential financial burden. The Ghana Law Society's publicly available schedule lists GH¢15,000 to GH¢45,000 for dissolution and custody matters only, while a separate 2022 fee document lists GH¢30,000 to GH¢90,000 for that category.

The difference between these published figures reinforces the need to establish which schedule applies and what a particular lawyer's quotation covers. Neither figure should automatically be treated as the amount every Ghanaian must pay for a divorce.

Even so, amounts running into tens of thousands of cedis can be beyond the means of many households. It is reasonable to ask whether the profession is doing enough to make family-law services accessible to ordinary people.

Lawyers should provide clearer fee estimates, explain the work involved and distinguish professional fees from court charges and other expenses. They should also explain when a matter can potentially be resolved through negotiation or mediation rather than contested litigation.

The profession should not expect people to understand its fee structures without making an effort to explain them.

But there is another side to the argument: choosing a media platform because it appears cheaper does not necessarily mean that a person has received the legal assistance required.

Where the dispute concerns a child's future, marital property or financial obligations, the cost of obtaining appropriate advice should be weighed against the possible consequences of proceeding without it.

The Legal Aid Commission must be part of the conversation

The discussion should not end with a choice between paying a private lawyer and appearing on radio.

Ghana's Legal Aid Commission provides free legal services to eligible applicants, including advice, assistance, representation and alternative dispute resolution. Its stated mandate is to improve access to justice for people who cannot afford private legal services and other eligible groups.

That option deserves greater public attention.

People who believe that legal assistance is beyond their reach should first establish whether they qualify for legal aid rather than assume that the courtroom is reserved for the wealthy.

Media houses can help by providing accurate information about legal aid and referring suitable cases to qualified professionals. Lawyers can also contribute through public legal education and accessible initial consultations.

The public needs to know that seeking legal help does not automatically mean filing a lawsuit.

The danger of turning private pain into public entertainment

There is another concern that deserves attention: the consequences of broadcasting allegations about a spouse before a large audience.

Once a dispute becomes public, the parties may face embarrassment, damaged relationships and pressure from listeners who have formed opinions without knowing the complete facts. Children and extended family members may also become exposed to details they would otherwise have been spared.

A broadcast can create the impression that the person who speaks most confidently, cries most convincingly or attracts the greatest public sympathy must be right. That is not a reliable way to establish facts.

Broadcasters have a responsibility to handle allegations carefully, protect vulnerable participants and avoid presenting unverified claims as established truth. Participants should understand the implications of public disclosure before sharing sensitive information.

Cases involving alleged domestic violence, threats or coercive control require particular caution. Bringing the parties together for a public confrontation may not be safe or appropriate. In such situations, access to specialised support and appropriate legal protection should take priority over entertainment or audience engagement.

The media can serve the public interest without turning every family dispute into a spectacle.

What must change?

Ghana needs a more coordinated response from broadcasters, lawyers, professional bodies and institutions responsible for access to justice.

First, lawyers must make their services easier to understand. Clearer fee information, plain-language explanations and appropriate use of mediation could help people make informed choices.

Second, law schools and professional bodies should encourage public legal education and support practitioners who want to develop expertise in family law. The number of newly called lawyers alone does not tell us how many are practising in this area or whether the country has enough affordable services. That requires evidence.

Third, broadcasters should recognise the limits of their roles. They can provide a valuable platform for discussion and informal reconciliation, but they should not allow the public to confuse an on-air settlement with a legally enforceable outcome.

Finally, couples must recognise that not every disagreement needs a public audience. Some problems can be resolved through private communication or counselling. Others require mediation, legal advice or formal court intervention. The appropriate response depends on the circumstances.

The real question is access to justice

Auntie Naa's popularity should prompt serious reflection, not a campaign to discredit relationship programmes.

If people feel that a radio studio offers a faster, more affordable and more responsive avenue for help than the legal system, policymakers and the legal profession should ask why.

But the answer cannot be to treat a broadcaster as a substitute for every professional service.

Radio can give people a voice. Counselling can help them understand their relationships. Mediation can help willing parties negotiate. Lawyers can advise them on their rights, and courts can issue legally binding decisions.

Each has a role

The goal should not be to stop Ghanaians from discussing marital problems on air. It should be to ensure that when a marriage breaks down, people know where to turn, what each option can achieve, and how to protect themselves and their children.

Auntie Naa may help a couple begin a difficult conversation. But when legal rights are at stake, public sympathy is not a substitute for sound legal advice