UGSoL Student’s Court Coram: Reflections from a student litigant

By Pastor Tommy Emmanuel O’DELL

A cursory observation of how the University’s student-led judicial board operates, currently in the various institutions of higher education, where, the faculty are consciously nurturing the next generation of lawyers and judges is vital, if one is conscious to assess the potential future of the Bar and Bench in any legal system, such as our fast fledging one, in Ghana.

Why is the practice of law, amongst law students important? Is the question this article answers and in a phrase, I dare assert that, aside the demand of our society and the law, for its pivotal role, in preparing the next generation of luminal lawyers, who shape society and its institutions, it provides and strategically helps position the students, at the very center of the bedrock of justice, hence, making every step towards practical experiences of same, one that will richly contribute to the entrenchment of justice, in our society.

The above mentioned point is most relevant, when one digest the definition that Aristotle gave to hope, when he asserted that, “hope is a walking dream.” Joseph Addison, a renowned English author, known for his praise of the import of education asserted in one of his widely known quotes that, “what sculpture is to a block of marble, education is to the soul,” clearly reminds us that, whatever platform that, education can afford people, certainly births hope, and it is imperative that, such advantages it offers, are taken by all, if we want to leverage such opportunities.

I was most recently admitted to the University of Ghana, School of Law, as a Post First Degree Law student, undoubtedly the nation’s best place for producing the next generation of LLB degree, who go on, to become excelling lawyers, I am of the candid view that, the Judicial Board of the University of Ghana School of Law, paints this big picture more visibly and hence, the core foundational essence of this write up.

Constitutional Provisions Guiding the Judicial Set Up in the University

With particular references to the University of Ghana – Law Students Union (LSU) Constitution, we will examine how the constitutional provisions asserts the Judicial Board formation and delve into a few of the applications before it, where the author, was involved in, as the plaintiff/student litigant and the varied practical lessons learnt, that can spur on other fresh law students to be daring and leverage the juridical opportunities, it offers to the next generation of student-lawyers, aside the popular moot competition options, equally available.

As a semester old law student, my introduction to the definition of what a Constitution is and its relevance, aside other foundational topical legal concepts of separation of powers, natural justice, human rights, judicial review can be attributed specifically and directly to the combined lecturing force of Prof. Atudiwe P. Atupare (currently the Dean of the UGSoL) and Dr. Justice Srem Sai (the Deputy Attorney- General and Minister for Justice).

Together, serving as our lecturers, have laid such pivotal academic foundations in our heads that, one is forced to fall in love with the constitutional law and so with this background, coupled with my leadership role as both a Class President and Member of Senate, the student’s body highest decision-making body, I am naturally tuned in to see where there is a potential abuse of power in my view and always eager to utilize the legal system, to seek justice, clearly, this is the way, a potential student litigant, is birthed.

According to Chapter Five of the Law Student’s Union Constitution, specifically in Article 52, it explicitly shares who has capacity to be part of the Judicial Board, as, it states that:

(1)(a) There shall be a Judicial Board of the Union which shall consist of five (5) members.

(b)No person shall qualify as a member of the Judicial Board unless he has successfully completed the first year in the School of Law.

(c) No student shall be qualified as a member of the Judicial Board unless he is of a high moral standing and proven integrity.

(d)The members of the Board shall be appointed by the Executive Council subject to the approval of the Senate.

(e) Upon approval, the President in consultation with the Executive Council shall appoint a Chairperson of the Board who shall be called the CHIEF JUSTICE.

(f) The members of the Judicial Board shall be called “JUSTICES’’

In advancing the concept of Separation of Powers, the LSU constitutional provisions, as seen above and in direct subject to our Constitution, 1992, allows for the President (in consultation with the Executive Council, in our case,) to select the justices, who are then empowered to be independent in their judgements, as Article 53 affirms below:

Article 53 (1) (a) In the exercise of its functions, the Judicial Board shall be subject to this Constitution, the Constitution of the Students Representative Council, the Statutes of University of Ghana and the National Constitution only and shall not be subject to the control, influence and interference of any person, body or institution in the Union.

(b) The Executive Council, Senate or any other body shall be obliged to accord the Judicial Board such assistance as the Board may deem necessary to protect the Independence, Dignity and Effectiveness of the Judicial Board, subject to this Constitution.

(2) No member of the Judicial Board shall be held liable for any act of commission or omission in the exercise of his function.

These due processes had been duly followed and hence, the selection of the following, as members of the Judicial Board, Her Ladyship Justice Elsie Eyram Akubia (Chief Justice of the Judicial Board) together with the following, Justice Bamfo William Afful, Justice Nana Ama Nhyira Ampomah-Yeboah, Justice Nelson Kendrick Selorm Kobla Kutsienyo and Justice Wisdom Ndukwe as its entire membership.

To set the ball rolling, my first suit, was brought before them, by the Registrar named Mimi Dufie, when I sought to bring an interlocutory injunction and a judicial review application to a proposed Election Commission’s referendum exercise, which in my candid opinion, had not fully submitted itself to the constitutional provisions.

I was very unsuccessful in this, as my case was struck out justifiable on grounds of procedural incompetence. In its simplicity, according to the LSU’s Judicial Board Rules (C.I 03) 2016, governing the work of the Judicial Board, it only makes room in such cases appropriate for application for judicial review, as I was supposed to have applied for, by an originating motion on Notice. The provision as according to Order 37, therefore states that:

37. An application for

(a) an order in the nature of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari or quo warranto; or

(b) an injunction restraining a person from acting in any public office in which the person is not entitled to act; or

(c) any other injunction, shall be made by way of an application for judicial review to the Court.

Someway somehow, despite my first ever application being worked on by myself and a close friend in the class and even running it by at least three (3) other friends in class, my application eventually ended before them, rather as a petition, instead of the motion. Inasmuch as I was given a short window, before the case was called for hearing, the following day, I was pre-consumed about fears that, my application was not going to be heard before the scheduled referendum and hence, I couldn’t utilize this window to amend my application.

In this application, the judges were ad idem, that, inasmuch as my application had not complied with the legal dictates, they struck out my case. The respected and eminent, AFFUL (JSC) in her written judgement, in my suit named, Pastor Tommy v. Legal Advisor in Suit No. (LSU-JB-002-26, page 4), had said “The use of the word SHALL, means that it is mandatory and per the rules governing interpretation of statutes, when a statute uses “shall” it means that it is mandatory and not permissive.

As in the case of In Re Presidential Election Petition; Akuffo Addo, Bawumia and Obetsebi Lamptey v. Electoral Commission and NDC [2013] SCGLR Special Edition 73, and relying on the authority of Vida Akoto Bamfo JSC, in the same mentioned case before the Supreme Court in interpreting the word “shall” stated that the word “shall,” as it appears in articles and in the Interpretations Act is mandatory which must be obeyed.”

Clearly, some of these inconsistencies were expected, in my candid opinion, especially when all of us involved were barely in only the first semester at the Law School and were even yet, to sit for our first ever exam in Constitutional Law and yet, we were eager to exercise our rights at the student’s court. Largely, other student litigants would have utilized student-lawyers in their final years, just to go by, but personally, I was eager to learn on the job.

This to me, was a fast learning curve for me, specifically in the area of ensuring that, I do not ignore procedure even when I have substantive issues, I intend to seek justice for, but to a few friends, I caught their attention as one of our colleagues, who was eager to practice in court and to some fewer other more brothers, I was deserving of this and in a jokingly nice way, we had laughed it off.

I took all these in, as rather inspiration to make progress and I confess that, this spurred me on, in the next case I would bring it up and force me to at least, not be thrown out again.

So with our end of semester exams going on, I would spend some few minutes, sometimes hours, just working on my next application as I contended that, by virtue of the supposed referendum exercise that had been undertaken by the Electoral Commission, where they had not gotten the Senate approval for its regulations and also, the choice to undertake this exercise in a manner that does not assure the student body of its credibility, through the use of google forms, clearly a departure from the modus operandi and security-tight electioneering mechanism, that the University of Ghana Information Technology Directorate makes available, for such elections.

I would late take time off the busy demands of preparing for our first end of Semester exams, which is very important by all standards and also make special times available, preparing my application to challenge this referendum exercise, praying the courts, that, the purported new constitution that has come into effect, be declared null and void.

My case before them

The Plaintiff, in my capacity as a member of the Union and a member of Senate, brought the Courts attention to the clear disregard of the constitutional procedural requirements, of Article 39 (1)(a) of the UGSol’s Constitution, which explicitly assigns the EC, the constitutional task to perform the following function specifically: in conducting and supervising all elections and referenda of the Union;

However, it’s Article 39 (2), under Functions of the Electoral Commissioner, issues out the provision that should govern the exercise of this constitutional function, which requires that, “The Electoral Commission SHALL, by constitutional instrument, make regulations for the effective performance of its functions under this constitution. Such regulations shall be approved by the Senate.”

I argued that, no such regulations were brought before Senate for approval or discussion, and that, the said 7-paged REFEREDUM REGUATIONS 2026, given by the UGSoL EC upon request after the purported referendum to the Plaintiff is not only an imagination of the figment of the arbitral EC and its appendages, but void and unlawful, lacking Senate’s backing.

Any rule or act found inconsistent with this Constitution including the arbitrary procedural decisions and influence of the Electoral Commission, in the exercise of this, is void to the extent of the inconsistency, per Article 2 (1).

Referencing the Respected AKUBIA, CJ (PRESIDING) in again, this respected courts most recent case, Pastor Tommy v. Legal Advisor in Suit No. (LSU-JB-002-26), where in giving her ruling, asserted the following, as case law interpretation of the word SHALL, said:

“This does not however mean that courts should for example overlook fundamental breaches of procedure in the initiation, …. However, whenever a law or rule of procedure stipulates the commencement of an action … by any specific process, it is by that process alone that the action is to be commenced.” See the case of Zainabu Naske Bako-Alhassan v AG [2013]DLSC2700, per Dotse JSC.

AFFUL JSC again in same Suit No. (LSU-JB-002-26, page 4), said “In the same case (In Re Presidential Election Petition; Akuffo Addo, Bawumia and Obetsebi Lamptey v. Electorial Commission and NDC [2013] SCGLR Special Edition 73), Ansah JSC stated that “By the use of the word “shall” the legislature intended that the duty to do the act specified and cast on the presiding officer must be honoured Page 4 of 7 in obedience to the letter.

I am fortified in this view because of the interpretation given to the word in our Interpretation Act, 2009, Act 792, which provided that: 27 “shall and “may” in an enactment made after the passing of this Act “shall” shall mean be construed as imperative and “may” as permissive and empowering”. Shall connotes an obligation or mandatory duty conveying a command bereft of discretion.”

The Plaintiff therefore was of the considered opinion that, if in the wisdom of the UGSoL Justices, “SHALL,” even as used in statutory provisions hold so much force and must be complied with, in good faith and good conscience on their same wise, they affirmed that, the UGSoL Electoral Commission cannot choose to disobey same use of “SHALL,” in a Constitutional provision!

The principle is further reinforced by Boyefio v NTHC Properties Ltd [1997–98] 1 GLR 768 (SC), where this Court emphasized that where the law provides a specific procedure for the enforcement of a right, in this specific case, the Electoral Commissions right to lead processes for LSU’s referendum, that procedure must be strictly followed and clearly, it blatantly refused to be guided by the Constitutional provision, its product, “construct a purported new constitutional edifice upon a void and unlawful foundation.”

The Courts Holdings and conclusions.

WHEREFORE, in the wisdom of the UGSoL, they upheld that, the Plaintiff following reliefs, were granted and upheld by the UGSoL Honourable Board:

1. a DECLARATION that the procedure adopted by the EC on 22nd January 2026, purporting to conduct and so declare the results of this purported referendum, was unconstitutional, arbitrary, null, and void pursuant to Article 2 (1), having so disregarded the requisite approval of senate, of any such regulation to guide this action, according to Article 39 (2), of UGSoL Constitution also, ii. a DECLARATION that the purported coming into force of this new constitution on the same day of 22^nd January 2026, is equally void, pursuant to Article 3 (2) and finally,

iii. a CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER directing the EC and other LSU Bodies, from referring to this purported new constitution, so built on an illegality, to stand, as to ensuring the demands of rule of law, probity and accountability.

As a student litigant and fresh at this, as a new law student, what stood out for me, where the invaluable lessons on procedure, preparation, presentation and passion, which I imbibed along the way.

These are experiences, many law students will wait for law school moot competitions, before they utilize them, but I am more convinced that, any law student can gain traction at the practice of law, by testing the waters at its institutional based or created law courts and such experiences, can only advance the enriching enterprise of practicing the law, whiles learning.

The author is a LLB Student, Ordained Pastor and Certified Counsellor.

The post UGSoL Student’s Court Coram: Reflections from a student litigant appeared first on The Business & Financial Times.

Read Full Story