Former President of the Ghana Bar Association (GBA), Yaw Acheampong Boafo, has sharply criticised proposals by the Constitution Review Committee (CRC) to remove the GBA from the 1992 Constitution, arguing that the recommendation is driven more by political considerations than by any objective assessment of the association’s performance.
Speaking in a recent interview on *Good Evening Ghana*, Mr Boafo described the CRC’s recommendation as unfounded and lacking evidential support. He maintained that there is no record of dissatisfaction from the constitutional bodies on which the GBA is represented, raising questions about the rationale behind the proposed constitutional amendment.
The Ghana Bar Association currently plays a statutory role on several key governance institutions, including the Police Council, Immigration Council, General Legal Council, Judicial Council, and the National Media Commission. According to Mr Boafo, none of these bodies has formally complained about the conduct, competence, or contribution of GBA representatives.
“Is there any empirical or documented evidence to suggest that the GBA’s representatives on these constitutional bodies have failed to discharge their responsibilities diligently?” he questioned, challenging both the CRC and proponents of the proposal to justify their position with facts rather than rhetoric.
Mr Boafo further pointed to historical context to strengthen his argument, recalling that even former President Jerry John Rawlings — who had a famously strained relationship with the legal profession and the GBA in particular — nonetheless acknowledged the association’s institutional importance. He noted that Rawlings’ decision to entrench the GBA’s role in the Constitution underscored a recognition of its value to legal oversight, democratic accountability, and constitutional governance.
In Mr Boafo’s assessment, the current push to remove the GBA is not rooted in performance-based criticism but rather in partisan motivations. He argued that the loudest objections to the GBA’s constitutional role have come from lawyers openly aligned with political interests, rather than from neutral institutional actors.
“They are advancing a partisan argument, not one grounded in empirical analysis or institutional failure,” he said. “The CRC itself admitted that the complaints originated from openly partisan lawyers, and that is precisely where my concern lies.”
He expressed unease that the CRC appeared to have accepted the proposal without seeking or receiving justification from the affected councils and institutions, a move he believes weakens the credibility of the review process. According to him, sidelining the views of these bodies undermines the consultative and evidence-based approach expected of a constitutional review exercise.
Mr Boafo warned that removing the GBA from the Constitution could have far-reaching implications for Ghana’s democratic architecture, particularly in relation to checks and balances, professional independence, and the rule of law. He stressed that the GBA’s presence on constitutional bodies has historically served as a stabilising influence, ensuring that legal expertise and professional ethics inform critical state decisions.
The former GBA President’s remarks add to an intensifying national debate over the scope and direction of constitutional reforms, with critics cautioning against changes they believe may erode institutional independence under the guise of reform.
source: Myjoyonline
