RETHINKING LEGAL EDUCATION IN GHANA: FROM ROTE MEMORIZATION TO OPEN-STATUTE EXAMS FOR A NEW ERA OF LEGAL COMPETENCE AND MASTERY.

By

Her Honour Judge Sedinam Awo Kwadam (Mrs.),

Circuit Court 7 Accra, Ghana.

28^th March, 2025.

 

ABSTRACT

Legal education in Ghana remains entrenched in an examination system that emphasizes the rote memorization of statutory provisions at the expense of practical legal reasoning and analytical skills, characterized by open-statute exams. This pedagogical approach contrasts sharply with the realities of legal practice, where lawyers and judges rely on statutory texts, case law, and jurisprudential literature to construct cogent arguments during submissions and render reasoned decisions. Despite this disconnect, the Ghana School of Law and university law faculties persist in administering closed-book examinations that prioritize memorization over critical legal competencies such as statutory interpretation, contextual application, and jurisprudential reasoning. This system imposes an undue cognitive burden on students while inadvertently privileging those with strong memorization abilities over those who may excel in analytical reasoning but lack strong recall abilities, ultimately distorting the foundational objectives of legal education.

This paper critically evaluates the shortcomings of the current assessment model. It proposes a paradigm shift toward open-statute examinations, wherein students are permitted access to the requisite pieces of legislation during examinations. The paper highlights significant shortcomings of memorization-based examinations, emphasizing their disconnect from the realities of legal practice, where professionals routinely consult statutes rather than rely on memory. It critiques the impracticality of requiring students to recall frequently amended laws and underscores how such assessments hinder the development of advanced legal reasoning and persuasive advocacy. Additionally, the paper addresses the disproportionate challenges faced by students with learning differences, which further exacerbate inequities in legal education. Counterarguments suggesting that open-statute assessments compromise academic rigor are refuted by demonstrating that, when well-structured, these assessments uphold rigorous standards for evaluating legal proficiency.

The paper concludes with policy recommendations and a call to action, urging the General Legal Council, Ghana School of Law, University Law Faculties, the Ghana Bar Association and other key stakeholders to facilitate the adoption of open-statute examinations as a progressive reform. Such a reform is not merely advantageous but imperative to ensure that Ghana’s legal education system remains pedagogically sound, equitable, and capable of producing practitioners equipped for the complexities of 21st-century jurisprudence.

 

Keywords: Legal education, Ghana, open-statute examinations, memorization, legal reasoning, pedagogical reform, assessment, professional practice.

 

 

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION.. 4
2. HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS OF MEMORIZATION-BASED LEGAL EDUCATION.. 5

III.       THE PROBLEMS WITH MEMORIZATION OF STATUTES IN EXAMS. 6

1. Contradiction Between Legal Education and Actual Legal Practice. 6
2. The Futility of Statutory Memorization in Modern Legal Education. 7
3. The Negative Impact on Legal Reasoning and Advocacy. 8
4. The Unfairness and Accessibility Issues. 8
5. THE CASE FOR OPEN-STATUTE EXAMS. 9
6. Aligning Legal Education with Legal Practice: 9
7. Enhancing Legal Research and Interpretation Skills: 10
8. Promoting Fairness and Inclusivity in Legal Exams: 11
9. COUNTERARGUMENTS AND REBUTTALS. 11
10. Argument: Memorization Builds Legal Discipline. 11
11. Argument: Open-Statute Exams Make It Too Easy. 11
12. Argument: Students Will Rely Too Much on the Statute and Not Think Critically. 12
13. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REFORM… 12

VII.      CONCLUSION.. 13

   

      I.         INTRODUCTION

Legal education functions as both a bulwark and a catalyst for jurisprudential advancement and effective governance, shaping legal practitioners within the ever-evolving landscape of contemporary geopolitical legal systems. However, in Ghana, the prevailing pedagogical framework remains tethered to an antiquated examination model that prioritizes verbatim memorization and recall of Legislative Provisions such as the Articles of the Constitution, Sections of Acts, and Orders, Rules and Regulations of Instruments, over substantive legal reasoning; a paradigm fundamentally misaligned with contemporary legal practice. This dissonance between academic assessment and professional demands raises critical questions about the efficacy of Ghana’s legal education system in preparing students for real-world legal practice.

The current examination regime implemented by both the Ghana School of Law and University Law Faculties across the country sustains an outdated assessment methodology that prioritizes rote memorization. This approach relies on mechanical repetition to retain facts, concepts, or legislative provisions without fostering a deeper understanding of their meaning or context. Students are often required to reproduce statutory provisions from memory without access to legal texts, with higher marks awarded for recall accuracy rather than comprehension or application. This system shifts the focus away from essential skills such as statutory interpretation, case law analysis, and practical problem-solving. Instead, it incentivizes students to prioritize memorization over meaningful engagement with the law, reducing assessments to exercises of recall for the sole purpose of scoring higher marks and passing exams, often at the expense of genuine understanding and practical competence. This approach reflects an antiquated legacy rather than aligning with the realities of contemporary legal practice, where lawyers routinely consult, refer to and rely on legislative provisions to prepare written submissions, oral arguments, and client advisories. Paradoxically, the emphasis on memorization, a skill of decreasing relevance in modern legal work, undermines the development of essential competencies that are indispensable for effective legal practice.

The anachronism of this examination system is starkly evident in light of Ghana’s rapidly evolving legislative landscape. Significant statutory reforms, such as the replacement of the Companies Act, 1963 (Act 179) with the Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992), render memorization-based assessment not merely archaic but functionally obsolete. Thus, memorized provisions risk becoming legally irrelevant before students even enter practice, let alone after years of practice as professionals.

Beyond its professional misalignment, the current system exacerbates inequities. It institutionally favours candidates with exceptional recall abilities colloquially termed “chew, pour, pass, and forget or cramming” while disadvantaging those whose strengths lie in analytical reasoning, the very skill most vital to legal practice. Moreover, it imposes disproportionate barriers on neurodiverse students, including those with dyslexia or attention deficits, who may exhibit exceptional legal aptitude despite struggling with rote memorization. The result is a Kafkaesque paradox: an assessment regime that filters out the analytical thinkers the legal profession urgently needs.

This paper critically examines these systemic flaws and proposes comprehensive reform through the adoption of open-statute examinations (Assessments permitting the use of applicable Legislative Provisions such as the Constitution, Acts, Orders, Instruments, and Regulations during exams).

Such a shift would:

1. Align academic evaluation with professional practice by mirroring real-world legal work;
2. Elevate higher-order legal skills (e.g., analysis, synthesis) over memorization;
3. Promote equity by accommodating diverse learning abilities; and
4. Enhance graduates’ readiness for the complexities of modern law practice.

 

The central thesis of this paper is that Ghana’s current legal education examination model is not merely outdated but actively impedes the development of competencies essential to 21st-century legal practice. Transitioning to open-statute assessments represents not just an incremental improvement but a necessary evolution to ensure Ghana’s legal education system produces practitioners equipped to meet contemporary challenges.

 

   II.         HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS OF MEMORIZATION-BASED LEGAL EDUCATION

The emphasis on memorization in Ghana’s legal education system stems from three foundational colonial-era objectives that continue to shape contemporary teaching methodologies.

Firstly, during the colonial period, the scarcity of essential learning materials, such as copies of the laws, necessitated a reliance on rote memorization. The high cost and limited availability of legal textbooks made frequent reference and consultation impractical, compelling students to internalize legal principles through memorization. This pragmatic response to resource constraints gradually ossified into an entrenched pedagogical norm, sadly persisting in the modern educational framework despite significant advancements in access to legal resources.

Secondly, British law tutors deliberately preferred memorization as a didactic methodology. Operating under paternalistic assumptions about African learning capacities, colonial instructors emphasized mechanical memorization and retention of legal provisions while systematically undermining analytical thinking. This epistemic orientation reflected broader imperial notions of legal education as knowledge transmission rather than intellectual enhancement.

Thirdly, and most critically, the colonial administration strategically designed legal education to produce compliant interpreters rather than independent legal thinkers. By conditioning students to apply legal provisions without critical thinking and analysis, the system effectively functioned as an apparatus of colonial control, producing legal functionaries equipped to administer imperial jurisprudence but disinclined to challenge its jurisprudential premise or application.

Unfortunately, this tripartite colonial legacy has persisted in our contemporary legal education assessment methodologies. The phenomenon is most conspicuously characterized by the anachronistic retention of closed-statute examinations. These examinations demand precise statutory recall and reproduction under temporal constraints, favouring mnemonic prowess over the interpretive and analytical skills that characterize modern legal practice.

 

 III.         THE PROBLEMS WITH MEMORIZATION OF STATUTES FOR EXAMS

A.    Contradiction Between Legal Education and Actual Legal Practice

The demands of modern legal practice stand in sharp contrast with the memorization-centric approach that dominates Ghana’s legal education system. In actual practice, neither lawyers nor judges are expected to recite statutory provisions from memory. Rather, the essence of their work lies in the ability to interpret laws, analyze precedents, construct coherent arguments, and apply sound reasoning to resolve complex legal disputes, often contemporaneously relying on legal resources without recalling them from memory. The continued emphasis on rote memorization in legal education therefore creates a profound disconnect between how students are assessed and what the profession truly requires.

A lawyer preparing a breach of contract case, for instance, does not rely on memorized provisions of the Contracts Act (Act 25). Instead, the process commences with a careful examination of the relevant statutory provisions, scrutiny of judicial precedents, and meticulous application of the law to the specific facts of the case. During oral arguments, counsel references these materials directly, particularly when responding to inquiries from the Bench. Similarly, in Constitutional litigation, legal practitioners draw from a wealth of sources such as Constitutional text, case law, and scholarly commentary, to formulate persuasive arguments. The ability to synthesize these materials, rather than memorizing them, is the cornerstone of effective advocacy. Judges, too, operate through deliberation and reference rather than memorization. During hearings, they engage with counsel’s submissions while simultaneously verifying statutory provisions and precedents. When drafting judgments, they conduct thorough legal analysis, ensuring their decisions are textually grounded, logically reasoned, and jurisprudentially consistent. The judicial process is inherently consultative, requiring constant reference to and reliance on legal texts rather than dependence on memorization.

Regardless of this reality, Ghana’s legal education system persists in its evaluation of students based on their ability to recall and reproduce statutes verbatim under timed, closed-book conditions. This approach not only misrepresents the realities of legal practice but also distorts pedagogical priorities. Instead of cultivating interpretive and analytical skills, the system conditions students to prioritize rote recall, a competency of negligible utility in actual practice. In consequence, the legal education system churns out generation after generation of law graduates proficient in memorization but underprepared for the reality of the demands of legal practice encompassing rigorous analytical reasoning, jurisprudential application, client representation, and decision-making.

 

B.    The Futility of Memorization of Statutes in Modern Legal Education

The continued emphasis on verbatim memorization of statutes in Ghana’s legal education system epitomizes a profound pedagogical incongruity that fails to align with the realities of contemporary legal practice. This approach misapprehends the primordial jurisprudence of law as a dynamic, evolving apparatus and catalyst of governance rather than a quiescent framework of immutable regulations. The professional legal landscape demands adaptability and analytical acuity, qualities that a memorization-centered curriculum systematically fails to cultivate.

Relative to the Constitution, other Legislative frameworks exist in a state of perpetual flux, undergoing regular amendments and revocation necessitated by emerging and evolving social realities, economic imperatives, and political developments. This inherent mutability renders the rote memorization of these statutory provisions an exercise in futility. The recent comprehensive overhaul of Ghana’s corporate law framework provides a compelling case study. The Companies Act of 1963 (Act 179), which formed the bulwark of commercial legal education for almost six decades was entirely replaced by the Companies Act of 2019 (Act 992). This legislative transformation introduced sweeping changes that rendered memorized provisions from the repealed Act not merely obsolete but potentially misleading in contemporary practice.

The constitutional domain presents an even more striking illustration of this pedagogical shortcoming. The establishment of the Constitution Review Commission 2025 (CRC 2025), under President John Dramani Mahama’s current administration, unequivocally denotes the need for periodic constitutional updates to maintain relevance in Ghana’s evolving democratic and legal landscape. Law students who dedicate substantial effort to memorizing constitutional provisions that may subsequently be amended or repealed find themselves in the paradoxical position of entering the profession with partially obsolete knowledge.

The fundamental deficiency in the memorization of statutes model stems from its flawed conception of legal competency. Specifically, its failure to properly account for the essential nature of legal proficiency, its constituent elements and requirements, the methodologies necessary for its effective acquisition, and the practical modalities for its successful transmission to students. True professional expertise resides not in the mechanical memorization of statutory language but in the cultivated ability to navigate complex legal systems, interpret evolving jurisprudence, and apply legal principles to novel factual scenarios. The contemporary legal practitioner must function as an interpreter and analyst rather than a repository of memorized provisions.

This critique does not suggest that familiarity with statutory provisions lacks value, but rather that the current assessment methodology fundamentally misallocates intellectual effort. By demanding that students internalize provisions that may change before they even enter practice, the system prioritizes transient knowledge over enduring analytical skills. The consequence is a generation of legal professionals potentially adept at recalling yesterday’s legislation but ill-equipped to engage with tomorrow’s legal challenges. Legal education must prepare students not merely for the law as it exists today but for the law as it will evolve throughout their careers. This requires pedagogical approaches that emphasize statutory navigation, contextual analysis, and adaptive reasoning. Only through such reform can Ghana’s legal education system produce practitioners capable of meeting the demands of modern jurisprudence and contributing meaningfully to the nation’s legal development. The current emphasis on rote memorization fails this fundamental test, producing graduates who may excel in examination halls but struggle in courtrooms and legal offices. The path forward lies in recognizing that legal excellence stems from analytical rigor rather than mnemonic prowess, and in restructuring legal pedagogy accordingly.

 

C.    The Negative Impact on Legal Reasoning and Advocacy

Memorization does little to evaluate a student’s ability to apply legal principles to real-world problems, which is the cornerstone of effective legal practice. Instead, it fosters a superficial approach to learning, where the emphasis is placed on recalling exact statutory language rather than understanding the underlying principles, reasoning, and context of the law. This method neglects the critical skills required for success in the legal field, such as interpretation, analysis, and argumentation.

Crafting legal arguments also demands the ability to synthesize information from various sources, including statutes, case law, and constitutional principles. For example, in a constitutional case challenging the legality of executive action, a lawyer would need to navigate the interplay between constitutional provisions, statutory laws enabling executive power, and judicial precedents on the limits of such power. This requires a deep understanding of how these sources interact and how to construct a cohesive argument that aligns with the client’s objectives. Memorization of the legislation therefore offers no training in building these complex, nuanced arguments.

 

D.    The Unfairness and Accessibility Issues

Memorization-based exams create an uneven playing field in legal education, disproportionately disadvantaging students who may not excel in rote learning but possess exceptional skills in legal reasoning, interpretation, and analysis. This bias in assessment undermines the core objective of legal education, which is to cultivate a student’s ability to think critically and solve complex legal problems. Unlike disciplines such as mathematics or engineering, where foundational principles remain largely consistent and static, the law is inherently dynamic. Statutes are frequently amended or revoked, judicial precedents evolve, and interpretations shift to reflect societal and political changes. As such, relying on memorization of these statutes as the primary measure of competence is both unrealistic and inequitable.

For instance, a student with a sharp analytical mind may excel at interpreting how recent amendments to Ghana’s Companies Act affect corporate governance but might struggle to recall verbatim the wording of specific sections. This student’s aptitude for legal analysis, the skill most relevant in practice, is overlooked in a system that rewards rote memorization. Conversely, a student with strong memorization skills might perform well in exams but struggle in real-world scenarios that require applying the law to ambiguous or novel situations.

Moreover, this approach creates additional barriers for students with learning disabilities or cognitive conditions such as dyslexia or attention deficit disorders, which can impair memory retention. For these students, recalling and reproducing large amounts of text under exam pressure is an unfair, inequitable, and undue burden. For example, a dyslexic student who excels in understanding complex legal concepts and crafting coherent arguments may underperform in a memorization-heavy assessment, not because of a lack of ability, but because of an irrelevant emphasis on recall.

Providing access to statutes during exams addresses these inequities by shifting the focus from memory to the skills that truly matter in legal practice: interpretation, reasoning, and application. It allows students to demonstrate their competence in analyzing statutory language, distinguishing relevant provisions, and constructing logical arguments without being penalized for an inability to memorize, recall, and reproduce. For example, in an open-statute exam, a student might be tasked with identifying the specific provisions of a labour law that apply to a hypothetical dispute and arguing their relevance based on case law and broader legal principles. Such assessments are not only fairer but are also better aligned with the realities of the professional legal work.

By ensuring that exams assess actual legal skills rather than memory, open-statute assessments create a more inclusive and equitable educational environment. They recognize the diverse abilities of students and ensure that no one is unfairly disadvantaged by an arbitrary emphasis on rote memorization. This approach ultimately produces graduates who are better prepared to meet the demands of a dynamic and complex legal profession.

 

 IV.         THE CASE FOR OPEN-STATUTE EXAMS

A.    Aligning Legal Education with Legal Practice

To bridge the significant gap between the theoretical approach of law school and the practical realities of professional legal work, examinations must be designed to closely mirror the conditions lawyers encounter in real-world practice. In actual legal settings, practitioners rarely rely solely on memory; instead, they reference statutes, case law, and legal doctrines to formulate arguments, draft documents, and advise clients. Replicating this environment in legal education through open-statute exams enables students to develop the skills they will need in their careers.

Open-statute exams provide students with access to relevant legal texts during assessments, allowing them to engage with these resources as they would in practice. For instance, in courtrooms, lawyers often need to quickly locate specific provisions in a statute, understand how they apply to a case, and construct an argument based on that application. This process requires familiarity with legal texts, interpretive skills, and the ability to apply statutory language to unique circumstances, skills that are best cultivated in an environment where students actively work with the law, rather than relying solely on their memory of the law.

Consider the example of contract disputes. In practice, lawyers analyze clauses within a contract while referencing statutes such as Ghana’s Contract Act or relevant international principles, like the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). They also examine case law to determine how courts have interpreted similar issues. An open-statute exam could replicate this scenario by presenting students with a hypothetical contract dispute and requiring them to identify applicable statutory provisions, analyze their implications, and argue for a specific interpretation or outcome. This approach would reinforce their ability to navigate legal texts, identify critical language, and apply the law effectively under time constraints just as they would in a professional setting.

By incorporating open-statute exams, law schools can ensure that students are not only evaluated on their knowledge of the law but also on their ability to locate, interpret, and apply legal provisions. This type of assessment bridges the divide between academic training and practical application, producing graduates who are more confident and competent in handling the complexities of legal practice. It shifts the focus of legal education from rote learning to the cultivation of essential, real-world skills, preparing students for the demands of a dynamic and evolving profession.

B.    Enhancing Legal Research and Interpretation Skills

In practice, no lawyer or judge is expected to memorize the entire content of any law. Instead, they must be adept at quickly identifying the sections relevant to a client’s situation, understanding how those sections interact with related provisions, and applying them to provide accurate advice. Teaching students to locate and interpret these statutes prepares them for the demands of such scenarios.

Developing skills in statutory interpretation is equally crucial. Many statutes contain ambiguous language or provisions that may conflict with other laws. Encouraging analytical engagement with legal texts goes beyond understanding individual provisions. It involves teaching students to evaluate how statutes interact with case law and broader legal principles. An open-statute system ensures that students become familiar with how to navigate legal documents effectively.

An open-statute approach better prepares students for the demands of the profession by shifting the focus of legal education from memorization to the practical skills of locating, interpreting, and analyzing legal texts. It equips them with tools to engage with the law as it exists in practice: dynamic, interpretive, and deeply interconnected, making them more competent and confident in their future legal careers.

C.    Promoting Fairness and Inclusivity in Legal Exams

Legal education must adopt an equitable assessment system that evaluates students based on the essential competencies required for effective legal practice. These core competencies include legal reasoning, problem-solving, statutory interpretation, and the ability to construct logical arguments. The current reliance on memorization-heavy exams often fails to capture these skills, instead placing undue emphasis on a student’s capacity for rote recall. Open-statute exams offer a more balanced and realistic approach, allowing students to demonstrate their reasoning abilities and legal acumen without being unfairly penalized for lapses in memory, which are irrelevant to actual legal practice.

Equitable assessment also addresses the challenges faced by students with different learning styles or cognitive conditions. For instance, a student with exceptional analytical and critical thinking abilities might excel in interpreting how recent amendments to Ghana’s Companies Act impact corporate governance but struggle to memorize the specific wording of those amendments. Penalizing such a student for a lapse in recall overlooks their real strengths and potential as a legal professional. Similarly, students with learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, face additional barriers in memorization-heavy exams. Open-statute assessments level the playing field by testing the ability to engage with legal texts and solve problems, skills that matter in real-world legal practice.

 

    V.         COUNTERARGUMENTS AND REBUTTALS

A.    Argument: Memorization Builds Legal Discipline.

Rebuttal: Legal discipline is better cultivated through rigorous training in analysis and argumentation rather than rote recall. A competent lawyer understands and can apply the law effectively, not merely recite it.

B.    Argument: Open-Statute Exams Make It Too Easy.

Rebuttal: Exams can be designed to maintain academic rigour by focusing on complex legal problems that require deep understanding and analytical application rather than mere regurgitation of statutory language.

C.    Argument: Students Will Rely Too Much on the Statute and Not Think Critically.

Rebuttal: Open-statute exams do not mean students will not have to prepare. They will still need to understand the law, identify relevant provisions, and apply them effectively under time constraints. Promoting tiresome learning skills belongs in history.

 

 VI.         RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REFORM

To better prepare students for legal practice, legal education must shift from rote memorization to a case-based, analytical approach. This reform fosters essential skills like legal interpretation, analysis, and application, rather than mechanical recall of statutes. Essay-style and application-based questions are key, requiring deeper engagement with legal concepts than multiple-choice formats. For instance, in property law exams, students could analyze land dispute provisions in the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036) using a provided copy, rather than memorizing them. This method reduces cognitive overload and reliance on mnemonic techniques, allowing students to focus on critical legal reasoning. It also develops practical skills, such as efficiently locating, interpreting, and applying statutory provisions, core competencies for legal professionals.

The Ghana School of Law and university law faculties must recognize the urgent need for reform. The continued reliance on memorization-based assessments not only undermines the development of essential legal skills but also fails to prepare students for the realities of professional practice. Embracing open-statute exams would represent a bold and necessary step towards modernizing legal education, ensuring that graduates are better equipped to navigate the complexities of the legal profession. Providing statutes such as the Criminal Offenses Act, 1960 (Act 29), the Criminal Procedure Act, 1960 (Act 30), the Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992), the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921), and procedural instruments like the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), to candidates during exams fundamentally transforms the assessment process. It eliminates the necessity for candidates to memorize statutory provisions verbatim, shifting the focus toward evaluating their ability to navigate, interpret, and apply these laws effectively in problem-solving scenarios.

By eliminating the undue burden of memorization, open-statute exams create a level playing field, allowing candidates to focus on honing their legal reasoning and analytical skills. Such a system fosters a deeper understanding of the law, as students are encouraged to engage critically with the material rather than passively committing it to memory for short-term retention and simply to pass their exams.

 

 

VII.         CONCLUSION

Having walked the journey as a law student, practicing lawyer, and judge cumulatively for nearly 19 years of my adult life, and having spent more than 6 of those years periodically presenting webinars for newly called lawyers, tutoring law students assigned to me for their internship and others in law faculties, I have observed firsthand the detrimental effects of an education system overly reliant on the memorization of statutes for passing exams. This practice, while aimed at ensuring familiarity with the law, has inadvertently stripped students, the legal community, and the beneficiaries of legal services of the full potential of newly minted lawyers after their call to the Bar.

The emphasis on rote memorization creates a narrow focus on recalling statutory provisions rather than understanding their underlying principles and jurisprudence or developing the analytical skills necessary to interpret and apply the law effectively. As a result, students often emerge from their training with a superficial grasp of legal doctrines, unprepared to engage with the complexities and nuances that define real-world legal practice.

The consequences extend beyond the classroom. Within the legal community, the influx of new lawyers who are technically qualified but lack the practical reasoning and interpretative skills needed for robust legal advocacy diminishes the overall quality of legal practice. This gap between academic training and professional readiness not only limits the effectiveness of these lawyers but also erodes public confidence in the legal profession.

Moreover, the beneficiaries of legal services; clients, businesses, and society at large, are shortchanged by a system that fails to produce well-rounded legal professionals. In my experience as an ad-hoc law educator, I have seen the transformative impact of shifting the focus from rote recall to critical thinking and practical application. Students who are encouraged to engage deeply with legal principles, explore case law, and apply their knowledge to complex problems emerge more confident, capable, and prepared to navigate the realities of legal practice. This approach not only enhances their competence but also enriches the legal community and strengthens the profession’s ability to serve society effectively.

It is imperative for legal education systems, particularly in jurisdictions like Ghana, to recognize the limitations of memorization-based training and embrace reforms that prioritize critical thinking, problem-solving, and practical skills. By moving away from an outdated model that stifles intellectual curiosity and creativity, we can unlock the full potential of law students, creating a new generation of lawyers equipped to meet the demands of an ever-evolving legal landscape.

Transitioning to open-statute examinations represents a logical and necessary reform to bridge the gap between academic training and practical application. This approach would foster a deeper understanding of legal principles, promote fairness, and cultivate essential skills such as statutory interpretation and legal reasoning. Counterarguments against such reforms, including claims that they dilute academic rigor or discourage critical thinking, can be effectively addressed by designing assessments that emphasize analytical depth and problem-solving.

 

CALL TO ACTION: A COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR LEGAL EDUCATION REFORM

To the General Legal Council of Ghana, the Director of the Ghana School of Law, Deans and Faculties of Law Schools across Ghana, the Executives of Law Students’ Associations, the Ghana Bar Association, the Bench, and all stakeholders invested in the future of Ghana’s legal profession landscape, the time for decisive action is now. The evidence is irrefutable; our current legal education model, anchored in colonial-era memorization or rote learning, fails to produce newly trained lawyers equipped for the demands of modern practice. This systemic deficiency not only handicaps graduates but also diminishes the quality of legal services being provided, overburdens senior lawyers with total retraining of new lawyers, and ultimately undermines public trust in the legal profession.

The General Legal Council, as the regulatory body overseeing legal education, must spearhead reforms by mandating open-statute examinations and restructuring assessments to prioritize legal reasoning, statutory interpretation, and problem-solving over rote recall. Legal education must shift from being a test of memory to a true evaluation of analytical and practical competencies. This transformation will require a deliberate, structured, and inclusive approach to policy reform, one that accounts for the evolving nature of global legal practice.

The Ghana School of Law and university law faculties must urgently revise their curricula to reflect real-world legal practice, integrating case-based learning, research-driven assessments, and technology-aided legal research tools. The integration of practical skills training including moot court exercises, negotiation simulations, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques should form a core component of legal education. Such measures will ensure that students graduate with a holistic understanding of the law and its application in diverse contexts.

Law Students’ Associations must amplify the voices of their peers, advocating for a system that evaluates competence rather than memory. These Associations are uniquely positioned to channel students’ concerns and feedback into actionable recommendations. By organizing forums, debates, and public advocacy campaigns, as well as engaging the educational and regulatory authorities in their respective institutions, they can serve as catalysts for meaningful dialogue and reform.

The Ghana Bar Association and the Bench comprising seasoned practitioners and judges must lend their expertise to shape these reforms. Their firsthand insights into the gaps between legal education and professional practice are invaluable. By collaborating with academia and regulatory bodies, they can help design training modules and evaluation systems that align with the realities of legal work. The active involvement of these entities will bridge the divide between theory and practice, ensuring a seamless transition for graduates into the legal profession.

Professor Ernest Kofi Abotsi[1] has indubitably identified the critical issue of legal education reforms, particularly regarding the adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in legal education, training, and assessment. His challenge resonates profoundly: “Rather than fight AI, what if Ghanaian universities embraced the reality of a future where students will inevitably use tools like ChatGPT to write better essays and undertake research? Where grading & assessments will move from its more than half-a-century armchair of lazy conservatism? Can we for once move ahead of others rather than play late by suppressing our students until the train is long gone before Ghana/Africa realizes that the future belongs to those who make it?“[2]

By parity of reasoning, I find illumination in Professor Abotsi’s challenge, unequivocally concurring with him and further extending his perspective to encompass legal education examination reforms from rote memorization to open-statute models. I borrow the words of the learned Professor and ask, “Can we for once move ahead of others rather than play late by suppressing our students until the train is long gone before Ghana/Africa realizes that the future belongs to those who make it?”

The answer lies in our collective willingness to act. Let us convene a national dialogue on legal education reform, engage in pilot programs for open-statute assessments, and commit to a phased transition toward a system that cultivates thinkers, not just reciters, of the law. The expertise of international legal education experts can also be harnessed to benchmark Ghana’s system against global best practices.

The future of Ghana’s legal profession hinges on this transformation. We must not cling to outdated methods while the world advances. The implications of inaction are dire: a stagnant legal profession and a nation deprived of the full potential of its legal minds. The time for reform was yesterday. Unfortunately, yesterday is gone. The next best time is today.

I have long held the belief that legal education reform in Ghana is already late. Its urgency was yesterday’s imperative, now lost to time’s inexorable march and passing inevitability. Today stands as the final frontier between stagnation and progress; between a legal education system shackled to antiquity and one acquainted with the future. The choice is not merely one of timing, but of existential consequence: Will Ghana’s legal fraternity board the moving train of modern evolution or be left stranded at the station of anachronistic obsolescence? Will we be architects of transformation or relics of fossilization?

 

[1] Global Law Experts, ‘E. Kofi Abotsi – Global Law Experts’ (Global Law Experts19 February 2025) <https://globallawexperts.com/legal/e-kofi-abotsi/> accessed 28 March 2025.

[2] Professor Ernest Kofi Abotsi (X (formerly Twitter)27 March 2025) <https://x.com/ProfAbotsi/status/1905157293672440180?t=kjCm4MHPcZOfZMtqqPiJyQ&s=19> accessed 28 March 2025.