The General Legal Council (GLC), in its Statement of Case of Defendant [ads1]to the Supreme Court on July 30, 2017 has submitted that “The Plaintiff [Emmanuel Korsi Senyo] who says he is not a lawyer is in effect practising law in the Highest Court of this land by filing a writ, statement of case, raising points of law, arguing them and citing authorities. Respectively, he is practicing law without the necessary qualifications.”
In a 21 pages Reply to the submissions of the GLC, Korsi Senyo argues that it is not only lawyers that have the right to sue at the highest court of the land citing several non lawyers who brought cases before it hence the impression created in the defendant’s statement of case is erroneous.
“My Lords, this Reply is necessitated by erroneous legal submissions by the Defendant in its statement of case filed on 31st July, 2017. My Lords, it is submitted in paragraph 1.2. of the Defendant’s Statement of Case that the Plaintiff [Emmanuel Korsi Senyo] is not a lawyer and as such cannot bring a suit before this Honourable Court”
According to Mr. Senyo in his Reply, Article 2 (1) of the 1992 Constitution clearly states who can bring a suit before the Supreme Court.
He further pointed out that “Nowhere in Article 2 (1) of the Constitution does it state that one must be a lawyer before bringing a suit before this Honourable Court as argued by Counsel for the Defendant”
Supporting his argument, Mr. Senyo cited many cases including Amidu v. President Kufour[1], Acquah JSC (as he then was) at page 100 delivered himself thus:
“….where it is alleged before the Supreme Court that any organ of government or an institution is acting in violation of a provision of the constitution, the Supreme Court is in duty, bound by articles 2(1) and 130(1) to exercise jurisdiction, unless the Constitution has provided a specific remedy, like those of articles 33 and 99 for dealing with that particular violation. It follows therefore that no individual nor creature of the Constitution is exempted from the enforcement provision of article 2 thereof. No one is above the law. And no action of any individual or institution under the Constitution is immuned from judicial scrutiny if the constitutionality of such an action is challenged.”
“My Lords, the Plaintiff is not a lawyer by profession. He is an ordinary adult citizen of Ghana. He is seeking the interpretation and the enforcement of various provisions of the 1992 Constitution, namely Articles 11(7), 23, 296(a) and (b) and 297(d). The remedies sought are not personal rights. Consequently, chapter 5 of the Constitution is not applicable to him personally.” – he added
The case before the Supreme Court
Mr. Senyo is challenging a notice “Guidelines for Lawyers to Create Websites & Place Their Profile on the Internet” issued by the GLC on June 12, 2017 which appears to have softened the law to allow some form of online advertisement for lawyers.
According to Mr. Senyo, the GLC does not have the mandate to amend the rules to allow lawyers to create websites and placing their profiles on the internet hence issuing the writ to invoke the Supreme Court to declare such move unconstitutional.
For him, “seeking to allow some form of advertisement by lawyers without amending or revoking Rule 2 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 1969 (LI 613) is in violation of Articles 11(7), 23, 296(a) and (b) and 297(d) of the 1992 Constitution.”
He is thus praying the highest court of the land to declare as null and void, the June 12, 2017 notice issued by the GLC “Guidelines for Lawyers to create websites and place their profile on the internet” as it violates of Articles 11(7), 23, 296(a) and (b) and 297(d) of the 1992 Constitution.
However, in the statement of case by the GLC, the lead Counsel for the defendant argues that “In the statement of case, it is has been submitted that the Plaintiff’s contentions do not raise real or genuine issues of interpretation or enforcement. Your Lordships have therefore been respectfully invited to so hold”.
“It has also been submitted that the Defendant [GLC] by adopting the guideline proposed by the Ghana Bar Association, has not in any way sought to amend the Legal Professions (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 1969 (L.I. 613)” – GLC argues
According to the GLC stated that the Rule 2(4) of L.I. 613 is not contradictory as misconstrued by the Plaintiff adding that the guideline issued is not Orders, Rules or Regulations.
The GLC further stated that Korsi Senyo’s suggestion that the use of website is advertisement is “wholly misconceived”
For the GLC, “Websites are not intended to be used solely for advertisement. A website is also a virtual office/chambers in cyberspace”.
But Korsi Senyo disagrees and argues that “Counsel for the Defendant in paragraphs 3.1. to 3.11. of the Defendant’s Statement of Case argued that because the guidelines given by the Defendant were not an order, rule or regulation then Article 11(7) of the 1992 Constitution cannot be enforced based on the guidelines. My Lords, in the case of Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare vs. Attorney-General and The General Legal Council with Suit No. J1/1/2016, the Plaintiff sought to enforce Article 11(7) of the 1992 Constitution based on directives published by the 2nd Defendant therein with regards to legal education”
According to Mr. Senyo “the directives that were challenged by the Plaintiff [Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare] in Suit No. J1/1/2016 were neither Orders, Rules nor Regulations but that did not prevent this Honourable Court from enforcing Article 11(7) of the Constitution”
“Likewise, my Lords, the guidelines given by the Defendant herein not being Orders, Rules or Regulations does not in any way prevent the enforcement of Article 11(7) of the Constitution as submitted by Counsel for the Defendant.” – Korsi Senyo pointed out
“My Lords, in paragraph 3.13 of the Defendant’s Statement of Case, Counsel for the Defendant submits that since the guidelines were proposed by the Ghana Bar Association, the Defendant did no wrong in accepting the proposal without applying Article 11(7) of the Constitution
My Lords, since the use of the internet, specifically the use of websites in advertising is not stated anywhere in LI 613, in accepting the guidelines proposed by the Ghana Bar Association, the Defendant had to go through the processes stated in Article 11 (7) and 297(d) of the 1992 Constitution.” – Korsi Senyo emphasised
Source: AwakeAfrica.com
Read the full Reply from Korsi Senyo
[embeddoc url=”http://awakeafrica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Senyo-Reply-to-Defendants-Statement-of-Case.doc” download=”all” viewer=”microsoft”]