ADVERTISEMENT

Ken Kuranchie sues GLC and these are the reliefs he is seeking

Ken Agyei Kuranchie, the Editor in Chief of the Searchlight Newspaper, has sued the General Legal Council (GLC) of the Ghana School of Law.

Editor of the Daily Searchlight Newspaper, Ken Kuranchie

He has dragged them to the Supreme Court and the Human Rights Division of the Accra High Court for the role in the mass exams failure at the Ghana School of Law last year.

Kuranchie, who is one of the affected students, is seeking 26 reliefs from both courts, made up of eleven reliefs in the Supreme Court, and 15 reliefs in the Human Rights Division of the High Court.

And these are some of the declarations he is seeking from the Supreme Court against the GLC:

  1. He is seeking a declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 23 and 296 (a) and (b) and 107. (a) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, the October 2017 Intake to the Professional Law Course at the Ghana School of Law, Makola, under which he was admitted, was governed by the Professional Law Course Regulations, 1984 (L.I. 1296), and the Legal Profession Act, 1960, (Act 32).
  2.  That on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 23 and 296 (a) and (b) of the 1992 Constitution, the Pass Grade employed by the General Legal Council and its offices, officers and assigns, namely the Board of Legal Education and the Ghana School of Law, with regard to the 2017 Intake to the Ghana School of Law, are unknown to L.I. 1296 and constitute a capricious exercise of discretion and therefore null and void.
  3. A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 17 (2) and (3), 18 (1), 20 (1), 25 (1) (c), 23, and 296 (a) and (b) of the 1992 Constitution, Regulations 9 (4) of LI 1296, and Regulation 14. (2) of the Legal Profession (Professional and Post-Call Law Course) Regulations, 2018, (L.I. 2355), both of which limit the number of times a student can resit an examination, are null and void.
  4.  A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 18 (1) and 20 (1) of the 1992 Constitution, examination grades and scores constitute vested property in the persons in whom they are declared, and therefore Regulation 9 (5) of L.I. 1296 and Regulation 14 (1) of L.I. 2355, both of which cancel examination grades that are legitimately earned, are unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
  5.  A declaration on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 15 (1), 15 (2) (a) and 20 (1) of the 1992 Constitution, Regulation 9 (5) of L.I. 1296, and Regulation 14 (1) of L.I. 2355, both of which cancel examination grades and subject students to resitting courses they have passed, are unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
  6. The Supreme Court to agree with him that on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 15 (1), 15 (2), 17 and 25 (1) (c) of the 1992 Constitution, Regulation 1 of L.I. 2355, which provides for a quota system for admission to professional law course, is inconsistent with the 1992 Constitution and are therefore null and void.
  7. The Supreme Court agrees with him that on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 15 (1), 15 (2)(a) and (b), 17, 25(1) (c), and 38 (1) and (3) of the 1992 Constitution, Regulation 4 of L.I. 2355 requiring all students holding LL.B certificates to write an entrance examination before qualifying for the Professional Law Course is inconsistent the 1992 Constitution and same should be struck down as null and void.

JOIN OUR PULSE COMMUNITY!

Unblock notifications in browser settings.
ADVERTISEMENT

Eyewitness? Submit your stories now via social or:

Email: eyewitness@pulse.com.gh

ADVERTISEMENT