AMARFIO v. GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL
November 28, 1991
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- OSEI-HWERE J.S.C.
- AMPIAH
- ADJABENG JJ.A
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
November 28, 1991
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE
Section 16(1) of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) provides that a lawyer who has been guilty of grave misconduct in a professional respect (including any conduct which, in pursuance of rules made by the General Legal Council under Part III of the Act, is to be treated as grave misconduct in a professional respect), shall be liable either to have his name struck off the roll of lawyers or to be prohibited from practising as a lawyer for a period specified in the order suspending him. Part III of Act 32, of course, relates to discipline. Section 23 of Act 32 also provides that the General Legal Council may prescribe standards of professional etiquette and conduct for lawyers, and may by rules made for that purpose direct that any specified breach of the rules shall for the purposes of Part III of the Act constitute grave misconduct in a professional respect.
[p.483]
The disciplinary committee of the General Legal Council derives its authority to receive, investigate and decide on complaints relating to the conduct of a lawyer under Act 32. The rules prescribing standards of professional etiquette and professional conduct for lawyers formulated in pursuance of sections 23 and 53 of Act 32 are contained in the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 1969 (L.I. 613). On 18 October 1988 the disciplinary committee of the council notified the appellant of the following charges:
“COUNT 1
Statement of Misconduct
Grave misconduct in a professional respect contrary to section 16 of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32).
PARTICULARS OF MISCONDUCT
For that you Willie Amarfio, a lawyer, caused to be published an advertiser's announcement in the People's Daily Graphic of Saturday, 21 May 1988 to the effect that: ‘A.E. Norteye and his associates are not members of the Adjiwate family as they do not descend from the founder of the Adjiwate (Omaboe) We’, a statement which you knew was not true and calculated to mislead the public, inasmuch as in the civil suit No. Trs. 9/81 between the plaintiff, Nii Okwei Omaboe, and the defendants A.E. Norteye and Others in which you appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, the High Court in its judgment dated 29 February 1984 found that A.E. Norteye and J.A.N. Osuteye (the first and the second defendants) were descendants of the said Adjiwate family by blood
COUNT 2
STATEMENT OF MISCONDUCT
Grave misconduct in a professional respect, contrary to sections 23 and 53 of the Legal
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal, constituted by Osei-Hwere J.S.C., Ampiah J.A., and Adjabeng J.A., allowed Willie Amarfio’s appeal from a six‑month suspension imposed by the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council. Amarfio had published a rejoinder advertisement in the People’s Daily Graphic disputing the Adjiwate family membership of A.E. Norteye and associates based on descent from founder Nii Okwei Obroni. The Committee charged him with grave misconduct under section 16 of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) and rule 9(12) of L.I. 613, asserting disrespect for the judicial office and contradiction of the High Court’s findings in suit No. Trs. 9/81. Osei‑Hwere held count 1 misframed because section 16(1) prescribes sanctions, not offences; and that rule 9(12) is not designated as grave or professional misconduct. Absent abusive content, mere contradiction of a judicial finding is not disrespect. Adjabeng concurred, noting the High Court found ‘membership through the male line’, not ‘descendants’, and that the quasi‑criminal burden of proof was not met.