‘Robo-Justice’ and the future of law in Ghana

By Goodnuff Appiah Larbi, (Ph.D.) & Elizabeth Asantewah Ofori, Esq 

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 promise 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.

Analysis

Technological advancement has always reshaped professional practice. Just as society transitioned from rudimentary agricultural tools to mechanised farming, the legal profession cannot remain insulated from innovation. AI-assisted research platforms, automated drafting tools, and data-driven case management systems are already influencing legal work. These technologies can reduce delays, improve productivity, and support overburdened courts. However, uncritical reliance on AI risks undermining the very values the justice system seeks to protect like fairness, accuracy, transparency, and public confidence.

AI is best understood as a machine-based system designed to make predictions, recommendations, or decisions based on human-defined objectives. Modern AI systems rely on machine learning and neural networks, enabling them to analyse vast datasets and generate outputs that resemble human reasoning. In legal practice, this translates into tools that summarise cases, draft pleadings, predict litigation outcomes, or suggest authorities. Yet AI does not possess understanding, moral reasoning, or legal consciousness. It identifies patterns; it does not interpret justice. Consequently, its outputs are only as reliable as the data and assumptions on which they are built.

The origins of AI can be traced to the mid-twentieth century, notably Alan Turing’s inquiry into machine intelligence and the Dartmouth Conference where the term “Artificial Intelligence” was coined. While early AI was largely theoretical, contemporary systems are powerful and widely accessible. This accessibility has intensified their impact on legal practice, making it imperative for lawyers and judges to understand both their capabilities and limitations.

At the heart of Ghana’s legal system lies the demand for competence and integrity. Legal research is the lifeblood of advocacy and adjudication. Accurate citation of authorities ensures consistency, predictability, and fairness in the development of the law. Ethical rules governing the legal profession impose duties of honesty, diligence, and candour to the court. Any conduct that misleads the court or diminishes public confidence in the administration of justice constitutes professional misconduct.

A major risk associated with AI use in legal practice is the phenomenon of fabricated cases and authorities, commonly referred to as “AI hallucinations.” Comparative experiences from jurisdictions such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and South Africa reveal instances where lawyers filed court documents containing fictitious citations generated by AI tools. Courts in these jurisdictions have imposed sanctions, emphasising that lawyers bear personal responsibility for verifying every authority relied upon, regardless of whether an AI tool was used. The absence of intent to deceive has not been accepted as a defence; negligence alone is sufficient to attract professional consequences.

For Ghana, these developments offer a cautionary lesson. The use of AI does not diminish a lawyer’s duty to conduct independent and thorough verification of legal authorities. On the contrary, it heightens that duty. Submitting fabricated or unverified authorities, whether generated by AI or otherwise, threatens the integrity of judicial proceedings and risks miscarriages of justice.

AI also raises complex issues in relation to evidence, particularly electronic and digital evidence. Advances in AI-generated audio, video, and images commonly referred to as deepfakes pose serious challenges to authenticity and reliability. Courts must therefore exercise heightened vigilance when assessing electronic evidence, ensuring that traditional rules of relevance, admissibility, and proof are rigorously applied. While technology evolves, the foundational principles of evidence remain unchanged.

Despite growing speculation about automated judging, AI cannot replace judges or lawyers within Ghana’s constitutional framework. Judicial decision-making involves discretion, contextual reasoning, and an appreciation of social realities—qualities that cannot be replicated by algorithms. The 1992 Constitution vests judicial authority in human judges, accountable to constitutional norms and ethical standards. Functions such as the empanelling of judges, entrusted to the Chief Justice, underline the inherently human and constitutional character of justice delivery. AI may assist administratively, for instance by analysing workloads or case durations, but it cannot assume judicial authority.

Given the inevitability of AI adoption, the question is not whether AI should be used, but how it should be used responsibly. Lawyers must treat AI as a supplementary tool, not an authoritative source. Best practices include verifying all AI-generated content against primary sources, maintaining professional scepticism toward unfamiliar authorities, protecting client confidentiality, and ensuring that final responsibility for legal work rests with the lawyer, not the machine. Senior practitioners also bear a duty to train junior lawyers and clerks on the ethical and professional risks associated with AI use.

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 regulations should be strengthened 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.

Authored by:

Goodnuff Appiah Larbi; Professional Law Student at the Ghana School of Law. Email: [email protected] & Elizabeth Asantewah Ofori; Lawyer, currently practicing at Verve Legal Email: [email protected]

The post ‘Robo-Justice’ and the future of law in Ghana appeared first on The Business & Financial Times.

Read Full Story