1. Introduction

The enactment of the Legal Education Act, 2026 (Act 1170) and the issuance of the Interim Policy Directives of June 12, 2026, by Professor Raymond A. Atuguba, Director of Legal Education and Director of the Ghana School of Law, under the authority of the Attorney-General, mark the most far-reaching reforms to Ghana’s legal education system since the passage of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32).

Beyond addressing long-standing concerns about access to professional legal training, the reforms confront a question that has shaped legal education debates in Ghana for decades: Where should the line be drawn between substantive legal education and professional legal training, and who should be responsible for delivering each stage of that process?

This commentary explores the historical evolution of that debate, examines the constitutional and policy controversies it generated—including litigation before the Supreme Court of Ghana—and assesses how the new legal framework provides what many regard as the clearest and most principled distinction yet between academic legal education and vocational legal training.

The Historical Structure of Legal Education in Ghana

For decades, Ghana’s legal education system operated under a highly centralised model established by Act 32 and later reinforced by the Legal Profession (Professional and Post-Call Law Course) Regulations, 2018 (L.I. 2355).

Under that framework, graduates from accredited law faculties were required to pass the Independent Examinations Committee (IEC) entrance examination before securing admission to the Ghana School of Law (GSL), which functioned as both the gateway to the legal profession and the sole institution responsible for delivering professional legal training.

While the system was designed to maintain professional standards, it gradually created a significant access challenge. Each year, between 3,000 and 4,000 law graduates sat the entrance examination, yet only a limited number gained admission to the Ghana School of Law. Over time, this resulted in a growing backlog estimated at between 5,000 and 8,000 law graduates who had completed their LLB programmes but remained unable to proceed to professional training.

The access crisis, however, was only one aspect of the broader debate.

A more fundamental concern emerged regarding the nature of the curriculum itself. Although the Ghana School of Law was established to provide professional legal training, several courses taught within its programme—including Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Family Law—were also offered at undergraduate law faculties across the country.

This overlap raised an important question: if some of the subjects taught at the Ghana School of Law were substantively similar to those already taught at universities, what precisely distinguished professional legal training from academic legal education?

The issue became increasingly difficult to ignore. Critics questioned whether the separation between university legal education and professional legal training was rooted in genuine pedagogical necessity or whether it had evolved largely as a product of regulatory design and institutional tradition.

It was this unresolved tension that eventually sparked one of the most consequential debates in Ghana’s legal education history and laid the foundation for the reforms introduced under Act 1170.

• The Curriculum Debate: Can Law Faculties teach professional legal training?

3.1 The Argument for Faculty-Level Delivery

One of the most enduring debates within Ghana’s legal education landscape has centred on whether university law faculties possess the capacity to teach not only substantive law but also the courses traditionally reserved for the Ghana School of Law (GSL). Proponents of this view argue that if much of the GSL curriculum is doctrinal and theoretical in nature, there is little justification for excluding accredited law faculties—staffed by qualified academics and experienced legal practitioners—from delivering the same instruction, and potentially doing so with equal or greater effectiveness.

This perspective has gained traction among legal education scholars who contend that the long-standing distinction between university-based legal education and professional legal training was never underpinned by a clearly articulated pedagogical framework. For years, questions have persisted over what truly differentiates substantive legal education from professional legal training.

Critics of the traditional model have often maintained that law faculties are capable of teaching every course offered at the GSL. While this proposition may hold merit, the underlying argument is that many of those courses are not materially different from the substantive law subjects already taught at the undergraduate level. In other words, if the content remains largely doctrinal and knowledge-based, the claim that it constitutes a separate category of “professional” instruction becomes difficult to sustain.

The strength of this argument rested largely on the significant overlap between the curricula of university law faculties and the Ghana School of Law. Subjects such as Family Law, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), and Company Law appeared in both settings and were often taught by academics with similar qualifications and expertise. In the absence of a clear explanation of what rendered the GSL’s delivery of these subjects uniquely professional, the distinction between academic and professional legal education appeared increasingly blurred.

3.2 The Ghana School of Law’s Dual Curriculum and the Problem of Conceptual Ambiguity

At the heart of this debate was the structure of the Ghana School of Law’s own curriculum. Although the institution was established primarily to provide professional legal training, its programme combined two fundamentally different categories of legal education.

On one side were subjects such as Family Law, Alternative Dispute Resolution, and Interpretation of Deeds and Statutes—courses that are inherently doctrinal and theoretical. Their focus is on legal principles, statutory interpretation, jurisprudential reasoning, and the development of substantive legal knowledge.

On the other side were courses such as Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Conveyancing and Drafting, Advocacy and Legal Ethics, and Law Practice Management. These subjects are distinctly vocational in character, designed to develop the practical skills, professional judgment, ethical awareness, and procedural competence required for legal practice.

By placing both categories within a single professional training framework, the Ghana School of Law inadvertently blurred the line between substantive legal education and vocational legal training. Courses with markedly different educational objectives and pedagogical requirements were presented as components of the same professional curriculum, without any formal distinction between knowledge-based instruction and skills-based training.

This fusion of academic and practical subjects became a major source of conceptual uncertainty within Ghana’s legal education system. More importantly, it provided fertile ground for constitutional and policy debates about the true nature of professional legal training, ultimately contributing to the legal challenges that would later reach the Supreme Court.

The controversy highlighted a fundamental question that remained unresolved for years: what exactly makes a legal education course “professional” rather than merely “academic”? The absence of a clear answer would become one of the driving forces behind subsequent reforms aimed at redefining and restructuring legal education in Ghana.

• The Debate reaches the Supreme Court: Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare V. Attorney-General & General Legal Council

4.1 The Constitutional Challenge

The longstanding tension between academic legal education and professional legal training eventually reached Ghana’s Supreme Court in the landmark case of Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare v. Attorney-General & General Legal Council (2020) JELR 92003 (SC). The case raised several important constitutional questions concerning legal education, but one of its most significant issues centred on the plaintiff’s third relief.

Professor Asare argued that the distinction between the Professional Law Course offered by the Ghana School of Law (GSL) and the Bachelor of Laws (LLB) programmes delivered by accredited universities was arbitrary, capricious, and designed primarily to preserve the Ghana School of Law’s monopoly over legal professional training. In his view, the arrangement violated Article 296(b) of the 1992 Constitution, which governs the exercise of discretionary power by public authorities.

Article 296(b) provides that:

“the exercise of the discretionary power shall not be arbitrary, capricious or biased either by resentment, prejudice or personal dislike and shall be in accordance with due process of law.”

At the heart of the plaintiff’s case was the contention that no rational or principled basis existed for maintaining a strict separation between courses taught at university law faculties and those offered at the Ghana School of Law. According to him, the courses were substantially similar in both content and character, and the institutional separation served largely to restrict access to the legal profession by preserving the Ghana School of Law’s exclusive control over admission to the Bar.

4.2 Professor Asare’s Position on the Unity of Legal Education

Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, a respected legal scholar and public intellectual, became one of the most prominent voices challenging the traditional distinction between academic and professional legal education in Ghana.

His position was founded on the idea of curricular unity. In essence, he argued that the courses classified as “professional” by the Ghana School of Law were not fundamentally different from the substantive law courses already being taught in university law faculties. The distinction, in his view, was not rooted in any meaningful pedagogical difference but was instead a product of historical institutional arrangements and regulatory design.

Under this reasoning, university law faculties were not only capable of teaching substantive legal subjects but were equally equipped to deliver the courses then reserved for professional legal training. The implication was that the gatekeeping role historically assigned to the Ghana School of Law represented an exercise of institutional power that lacked a clear educational justification.

This argument resonated strongly within broader debates about access to legal education and reform of the legal profession. It highlighted the need for regulators and policymakers to explain precisely what makes a course “professional” in nature and what distinctive competencies or institutional requirements justify its separation from academic legal education.

4.3 The Supreme Court’s Response and Its Limitations

In considering the plaintiff’s challenge, the Supreme Court focused on the legal foundation of the distinction between academic and professional legal education.

The Court observed that the separation between the Academic Law Course and the Professional Law Course was not the result of discretionary decision-making by the General Legal Council or any individual official. Rather, it was established by legislation, specifically the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) and the Legal Profession (Professional and Post-Call Law Course) Regulations, 2018 (L.I. 2355).

The Court stated:

“The provision of the Professional Law Course separately at the Ghana School of Law is a product of the Legal Profession Act, 1960, Act 32 and the Legal Profession (Professional and Post-Call Law Course) Regulations, 2018 (L.I. 2355). The Academic Law Courses are provided separately not by the discretion of the 2nd Defendant but by the Statutes of the various Universities that have been approved to offer the course.”

On that basis, the Court concluded that the distinction could not be characterised as an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretionary power within the meaning of Article 296(b). Since the separation had been created by statute, it was not a matter of administrative discretion. Consequently, the challenge to the Ghana School of Law’s exclusive role in professional training was rejected.

While the Court’s reasoning was legally sound within the framework of constitutional interpretation, it left an important conceptual issue unresolved.

By finding that the distinction was lawful because it was statutory, the Court affirmed the legality of the separation but did not address the deeper question that lay at the centre of Professor Asare’s challenge: what substantive rationale justified classifying certain courses as “professional” rather than “academic”?

The fact that a distinction is established by legislation does not necessarily explain why that distinction is educationally or pedagogically sound. A statutory classification may be legally valid while still lacking a clear conceptual foundation.

As a result, the Court resolved the immediate constitutional dispute without fully addressing the underlying policy and educational question. It confirmed that the distinction was lawful under the existing legal framework but stopped short of articulating a coherent theory for distinguishing substantive legal education from professional legal training. That task was ultimately left to future legislative and policy reforms.

5. The Policy Directives as a Conceptual Resolution: Decoupling Academic and Professional Legal Education

5.1 The Architecture of the New Framework

The Legal Education Act, 2026 (Act 1170), together with the Interim Policy Directives issued on 12 June 2026, arguably provides the first comprehensive and principled response to the curriculum debate that culminated in the Asare litigation.

The reform achieves this through a deliberate restructuring of legal education. For the first time in Ghana’s legal education history, substantive theoretical subjects have been formally separated from practice-oriented professional courses that were previously combined within the Ghana School of Law curriculum.

The new framework establishes two distinct stages of legal education, each serving a different educational purpose.

The Pre-Bar Course (Academic Stage)

The Pre-Bar stage consists of subjects that are primarily doctrinal and theoretical in nature:

• Company Law
• Commercial Law
• Alternative Dispute Resolution
• Family Law
• Interpretation of Deeds and Statutes

These courses are designed to deepen students’ substantive legal knowledge and strengthen their understanding of legal principles, concepts, and interpretive techniques.

The Legal Practice Training (LPT) Programme

The second stage comprises courses that are expressly practice-oriented and vocational:

• Civil Procedure
• Criminal Procedure
• Law of Evidence
• Conveyancing and Drafting
• Advocacy and Legal Ethics
• Law Practice Management and Legal Accounting

The focus at this stage shifts from legal theory to professional competence, equipping students with the practical skills, ethical standards, and procedural knowledge required for legal practice.

The Significance of the Decoupling

The significance of this restructuring cannot be overstated.

From both a legal education and public policy perspective, the new framework accomplishes what the Supreme Court in Asare did not attempt to do: it provides a principled basis for distinguishing academic legal education from professional legal training.

The Interim Policy Directives explicitly describe the Pre-Bar subjects as “theoretical courses.” This terminology is highly significant because it clearly identifies the purpose of these courses as the development and consolidation of doctrinal legal knowledge before students progress to vocational training.

By implication, the courses within the LPT Programme are intended to be practical and skills-focused. Their purpose is not merely to teach legal rules but to develop the competencies necessary for legal practice. Consequently, the curriculum design, teaching methods, assessment systems, and learning environments associated with the LPT Programme must reflect that professional orientation.

The distinction therefore moves beyond legislative labels and rests instead on educational purpose and learning outcomes.

Answering the Question Left Open by the Supreme Court

Viewed in the context of the Asare decision, the Interim Policy Directives achieve something of considerable constitutional and policy significance.

In Asare, the Supreme Court accepted the validity of the distinction between academic and professional legal education because the distinction had been established by legislation. What the Court did not provide, however, was a substantive framework for determining why particular courses should properly be regarded as professional rather than academic.

The new framework fills that gap.

For the first time, legal education policy in Ghana identifies the educational characteristics that justify the distinction. Courses belong to the Pre-Bar stage when their primary purpose is the development of substantive legal knowledge and doctrinal understanding. Courses belong to the LPT stage when their primary purpose is the development of practical legal skills, professional judgment, ethical competence, and readiness for legal practice.

In doing so, the framework provides the conceptual clarity that was previously missing from Ghana’s legal education architecture and offers a principled resolution to a debate that occupied scholars, regulators, policymakers, and ultimately the Supreme Court itself.

The new framework fills that gap.

For the first time, a clear and principled basis is provided for distinguishing between the two categories of legal education. Under the Interim Policy Directives, a course falls within the Pre-Bar (academic) stage where its primary purpose is to develop substantive legal knowledge, foster an understanding of legal doctrines and principles, and enhance students’ ability to interpret and apply the law. Conversely, a course belongs to the Legal Practice Training (LPT) stage where its primary objective is to cultivate practical legal competencies, including procedural skills, professional ethics, advocacy, drafting, transactional expertise, and the exercise of professional judgment in real-world legal settings.

This content-based classification resolves much of the uncertainty that previously surrounded the Ghana School of Law curriculum and the distinction between academic and professional legal education. Under the former framework, critics frequently argued that the designation of certain courses as “professional” rested more on legislative labelling than on any meaningful difference in educational purpose. The new framework addresses that concern by grounding the distinction in the actual character and objectives of the courses themselves.

Importantly, the Directives expressly describe the Pre-Bar subjects as theoretical in nature, thereby reinforcing their academic character and distinguishing them from the practice-oriented courses reserved for the LPT stage. In doing so, the framework provides a coherent answer to a debate that persisted for years within legal and academic circles and ultimately found its way before the country’s highest court. In that respect, the Policy Directives represent a notable achievement in the evolution of legal education in Ghana.

Decentralisation and the Question of Faculty Delivery of Professional Legal Training

The New Framework’s Response

The Legal Education Act, 2026 (Act 1170), together with the Interim Policy Directives of 12 June 2026, signals a decisive shift toward faculty-based delivery of legal education across both stages of the training pathway.

Perhaps the most consequential reform is the decentralisation of the Legal Practice Training (LPT) Programme. By moving away from the longstanding monopoly of the Ghana School of Law and opening the pathway to accredited law faculties, the legislation directly engages a longstanding argument advanced by legal scholars, most notably Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, that university law faculties possess the capacity to deliver legal education beyond the traditional academic stage.

In many respects, the new framework validates that position. However, it does so with an important and carefully considered qualification.

While the Pre-Bar Programme may be delivered by any law faculty accredited by the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC), the delivery of the LPT Programme is subject to a more rigorous accreditation process administered by the Council for Legal Education and Training (CLET). This distinction is neither accidental nor arbitrary. Rather, it reflects a deliberate policy determination that professional legal training requires institutional capabilities beyond those ordinarily associated with academic legal education.

Why Professional Training Requires Specialised Accreditation

The requirement for CLET accreditation rests on a recognition that professional legal training is fundamentally different from the teaching of substantive law.

Academic legal education focuses primarily on developing legal knowledge, analytical reasoning, and doctrinal understanding. Professional legal training, by contrast, is designed to prepare students for the realities of legal practice. It requires students not only to understand legal principles but also to apply them effectively in professional settings.

For that reason, the Directives require institutions seeking accreditation to deliver the LPT Programme to satisfy a range of additional requirements before approval can be granted. These requirements are intended to ensure that faculties possess the infrastructure, personnel, practical training facilities, and institutional capacity necessary to provide high-quality professional legal education.

The framework therefore recognises an important truth: while many law faculties are fully capable of teaching substantive law, the delivery of professional legal training demands a specialised environment specifically designed to develop practice-ready lawyers.

• Conduct gap analyses of their existing curricula to identify deficiencies in practiceoriented provision;
  • Recruit or develop practice-oriented Faculty capacity — that is, academic staff with genuine experience in legal practice, not merely legal scholarship;
  • Improve facilities and infrastructure to support practical legal training;
  • Engage in structured collaborations with other Faculties and the GSL to address

capacity deficits; and

• Prepare to apply for accreditation when the portal opens in October 2026.

These requirements reflect a fundamental recognition that professional legal training requires far more than mastery of a curriculum. It demands a learning environment where students can develop practical competencies through hands-on, experiential learning—whether through moot courts, legal clinics, simulated client engagements, professional mentorship, or direct exposure to real-world legal processes. As the Directives make clear, the objective of the Legal Practice Training (LPT) Programme is not merely to teach students about the law, but to prepare them to practise it effectively. Such an objective cannot be achieved through traditional classroom instruction alone, regardless of the expertise of the lecturers involved.

This distinction is particularly important. Practical legal education is not simply the study or memorisation of procedural rules, statutory provisions, and legal doctrines. Rather, it involves cultivating the professional judgment, advocacy skills, transactional expertise, and ethical awareness required in legal practice through active participation and applied learning. A faculty that teaches Civil Procedure by analysing the High Court Civil Procedure Rules is engaged in substantive legal education. By contrast, a faculty that teaches the same subject through moot court exercises, client simulations, case file management, drafting assignments, and supervised practical training is delivering professional legal education. Although both approaches address the same area of law, they serve different educational purposes and require distinct institutional resources, teaching methodologies, and quality assurance standards.

• The Coherent Educational Pathway

The new framework establishes, for the first time, a coherent, transparent, and competency-based educational pathway from LLB to the Bar:

• LLB Studies at an approved university, incorporating progressive integration of PreBar theoretical subjects into the undergraduate curriculum, so that graduating students complete the full complement of foundational theoretical courses during their degree.
  • Pre-Bar Course – a bridging academic year, available at GTEC – accredited law faculties or the GSL, for current graduating students and backlog graduates, covering the five designated substantive law subjects.
  • Law Practice Training Programme – delivered at CLET-accredited institutions, comprising six practice-oriented subjects designed to develop the professional competencies required for legal practice.
  • National Bar Examination – a common assessment against which all candidates, regardless of the institution that delivered their training, will be measured. (V) Call to the Bar and entry into the legal profession.

This pathway ensures that substantive legal knowledge is fully consolidated before students progress to professional training, and that professional training is delivered in institutions with the demonstrated capacity to provide genuine experiential learning.

• Broader implications for Legal Education Policy and curriculum development

The reforms introduced under the Legal Education Act, 2026 (Act 1170) and the Interim Policy Directives mark a significant step in aligning Ghana’s legal education system with contemporary international standards. Across jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Australia and several Commonwealth countries, academic legal education and vocational legal training are clearly separated, with each stage governed by distinct regulatory frameworks, curriculum requirements and accreditation standards. Ghana’s new framework embraces this approach by establishing a clearer and more structured pathway to legal practice.

At the heart of the reforms is the introduction of a content-based classification of legal education programmes, designed around learning outcomes and educational purpose rather than institutional tradition. This provides law faculties with greater clarity regarding the knowledge, skills and competencies expected at each stage of legal training. It also creates a stronger foundation for curriculum coherence, progressive learning, and effective quality assurance across the legal education ecosystem.

The reforms further address the longstanding access challenges associated with the Ghana School of Law. By allowing accredited law faculties to deliver the Pre-Bar Course and, in time, the Legal Practice Training (LPT) Programme, the framework substantially expands the capacity of the system. This development offers a practical pathway for the thousands of law graduates who have accumulated over the years while seeking access to professional legal training.

Crucially, the expansion of access is accompanied by safeguards aimed at preserving professional standards. Through the accreditation and oversight functions of the Council for Legal Education and Training (CLET), institutions will be required to demonstrate that they possess the necessary infrastructure, faculty expertise and training capacity before being authorised to deliver professional legal education. The reforms therefore seek not merely to broaden participation, but to do so in a manner that maintains the quality and integrity of legal training.

Final Reflections

The history of legal education in Ghana has been shaped by institutional centralisation, curriculum uncertainty, limited access to professional training, and legal disputes that ultimately reached the Supreme Court. The Legal Education Act, 2026, together with the Interim Policy Directives issued on 12 June 2026, represents a deliberate and principled effort to address these longstanding challenges through a more coherent educational framework.

By clearly separating the theoretical components of legal education at the Pre-Bar stage from the practice-focused training delivered at the LPT stage, the reforms provide a conceptual clarity that was largely absent under the previous regime. They acknowledge the capacity of university law faculties to deliver substantive legal education while recognising that professional legal training requires specialised facilities, practice-oriented instruction and a regulatory framework tailored to vocational learning.

More than an administrative adjustment, these reforms represent the resolution of a long-running debate about the nature and purpose of legal education in Ghana. A debate that occupied scholars, practitioners, policymakers and the courts has now found expression in a framework that seeks to balance access, quality and professional competence.

For the first time, Ghana’s legal education system is built upon a clearly articulated distinction between academic legal study and professional legal training. If implemented consistently and rigorously, the new framework has the potential to usher in a more accessible, competency-based and future-oriented system of legal education—one capable of shaping the next generation of Ghanaian lawyers and strengthening the administration of justice for years to come.

Key References

1. Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare v. Attorney-General & General Legal Council (2020) JELR 92003 (SC)
2. Ghana School of Law, Interim Policy Directives Transitional Arrangements under the Legal Education Act, 2026 (Act 1170), dated 12th June 2026. 

Addendum

A Critical Appraisal: The Limits of the Delineation and the Problem of “Commercial Law”

Reorganisation Rather Than Reinvention: Continuity Between L.I. 2355 and the New Framework

The Interim Policy Directives have rightly attracted praise for establishing a clearer distinction between substantive legal education and professional legal training. By formally separating the academic and vocational components of legal education, the framework introduces a level of institutional clarity that many stakeholders have long advocated.

However, a closer examination of the curriculum’s evolution suggests that the reform is less of a fundamental reimagining of legal education than it may initially appear. While the structure has changed significantly, the substance of what students are expected to learn remains largely familiar.

A comparative analysis of the subjects prescribed under the Legal Profession (Professional and Post-Call Law Course) Regulations, 2018 (L.I. 2355), and those now distributed between the Pre-Bar and Legal Practice Training (LPT) stages reveals a substantial degree of continuity. Many of the knowledge areas that historically formed part of the Professional Law Course at the Ghana School of Law continue to exist within the new framework, albeit under a different organisational arrangement.

This continuity is important because it places the reform in its proper context. The principal achievement of the Interim Policy Directives is not the introduction of an entirely new curriculum, but rather the restructuring of an existing one. The reform redistributes legal education content across two formally distinct stages, each with its own pedagogical objectives, assessment mechanisms, and institutional responsibilities.

Under L.I. 2355, the Professional Law Course at the Ghana School of Law comprised the following subjects:

• Civil Procedure; 
• Criminal Procedure; 
• Law of Evidence; 
• Conveyancing and Drafting; 
• Law Practice Management and Legal Accountancy; 
• Advocacy and Legal Ethics; 
• Alternative Dispute Resolution; 
• Company and Commercial Law Practice; 
• Family Law and Practice; and 
• Law of Interpretation of Deeds and Statutes. 

A comparison between the new legal education framework and the previous Ghana School of Law curriculum shows that the substantive content of legal training has not changed significantly. Under the new structure, Pre-Bar subjects include Company Law, Commercial Law, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Family Law, and Interpretation of Deeds and Statutes, while the Legal Practice Training (LPT) programme covers Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Law of Evidence, Conveyancing and Drafting, Advocacy and Legal Ethics, and Law Practice Management and Legal Accounting.

Viewed alongside the courses previously taught under the Ghana School of Law model, it becomes clear that the reform is less about changing what students learn and more about restructuring how and where they learn it. The key difference lies in the formal separation of academic and professional training, with each stage now assigned to a distinct institutional setting.

This observation should not be mistaken for a criticism of the reform. On the contrary, the structural reorganisation is one of its most important achievements. By separating theoretical legal education from practice-oriented training, the framework creates an environment better suited to the educational objectives of each stage. Its primary contribution therefore lies in institutional clarity and improved curriculum organisation rather than a wholesale redesign of the subjects required for qualification to the Bar.

The Nomenclature Challenge: Commercial Law vs. Company and Commercial Law Practice

One area that merits closer attention, however, is the treatment of Commercial Law within the new framework.

Under the Policy Directives, Commercial Law is designated as a Pre-Bar subject to be taught during the academic stage. Yet the course that previously occupied a comparable position at the Ghana School of Law was titled Company and Commercial Law Practice, and its content differed considerably from what is traditionally understood as Commercial Law at the undergraduate level.

At the Ghana School of Law, Company and Commercial Law Practice was a vocational, skills-based course designed to prepare students for corporate and commercial legal practice. It covered areas such as corporate governance, company secretarial practice, minute-taking, legal due diligence, lending transactions, commercial agreements, and company liquidation. Students were trained to apply legal principles in practical commercial settings and were equipped with skills relevant to serving as corporate lawyers and company secretaries.

By contrast, Commercial Law as taught in most Ghanaian law faculties is primarily a doctrinal subject. It focuses on the legal principles governing commercial transactions, including the law of sale of goods, agency, negotiable instruments, and the regulation of business relationships. The emphasis is on statutory interpretation, case analysis, and understanding the legal framework underpinning commerce and trade. While essential, it does not typically cover the practical corporate governance and transactional skills embedded in the Ghana School of Law’s former programme.

A Case for Renaming the Course

The concern created by the current terminology is more than a matter of semantics. If left unaddressed, the designation “Commercial Law” may encourage universities to simply replicate their existing undergraduate Commercial Law courses as the Pre-Bar offering, without incorporating the corporate and transactional practice components that were historically part of the professional curriculum.

Such an outcome could dilute the intended scope of the Pre-Bar programme and leave graduates without the practical commercial foundations that informed the design of the previous professional training model.

For this reason, it may be prudent for the Council for Legal Education and Training (CLET), once constituted, to consider renaming the subject as Commercial Law and Practice. An alternative approach would be to merge Company Law and Commercial Law into a single course titled Company and Commercial Law Practice, thereby preserving continuity with the Ghana School of Law curriculum.

Such a change would serve several important purposes. First, it would clearly distinguish the Pre-Bar course from the undergraduate Commercial Law module and signal that the subject encompasses both legal doctrine and practical application. Second, it would preserve the historical connection with the Ghana School of Law course while adapting it to the new educational framework. Third, and perhaps most importantly, it would help ensure that students acquire foundational commercial practice competencies before progressing to the Legal Practice Training programme.

A similar, though less pressing, concern arises in relation to Company Law. Under the previous system, company law was taught within the broader Company and Commercial Law Practice course, which blended substantive legal principles with practical corporate governance skills. If the new Pre-Bar Company Law course is intended to focus solely on doctrine—covering areas such as the Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992), directors’ duties, shareholder rights, and corporate constitutional documents—then its designation is appropriate. However, if elements of corporate governance and company secretarial practice are expected to remain part of the curriculum, that intention should be clearly reflected in both the course title and syllabus. Detailed guidance from CLET will be crucial to ensure consistency across the country’s accredited law faculties.

Conclusion

The Policy Directive’s decision to formally separate academic legal education from professional legal training represents a significant and commendable reform. However, the long-term success of the framework will depend not only on its structure but also on the precision of its curriculum design.

The current designation of “Commercial Law” as a Pre-Bar subject leaves room for uncertainty, particularly because it shares a title with an existing undergraduate course while also appearing to replace a practice-oriented Ghana School of Law module. Without further clarification, this ambiguity could undermine the coherence the reform seeks to achieve.

A relatively simple adjustment—renaming the course Commercial Law and Practice or adopting a consolidated Company and Commercial Law Practice model—would provide greater clarity, preserve continuity, and strengthen the overall effectiveness of an otherwise well-conceived reform.