ETHICS, INTEGRITY & LAWYERING: CONFRONTING IMPUNITY, ADVANCING JUSTICE FOR SOCIETY

 In Ghana’s fight against corruption and environmental destruction, the conscience of the legal profession is on trial. Ghana is at a crossroads.

INTRODUCTION

Corruption continues to deplete public resources. Illegal mining is devastating river bodies, farmlands, and ecosystems—placing food security in serious jeopardy. These acts are not accidental; they are deliberate, profit-driven crimes committed by a few individuals at the expense of the entire nation.

Yet, there is a deeper issue compounding this crisis: the legal defence of the indefensible.

In many of these cases, those involved in grand corruption or illegal mining are represented by lawyers. While the law grants every accused person the right to legal representation and the presumption of innocence, this legal shield has too often become a tool for enabling impunity. There exists a moral tension we can no longer afford to ignore.

THE ROLE OF THE LAWYER: LEGAL TECHNICIAN OR CITIZEN?

Under Ghanaian law, lawyers are recognised not only as advocates for clients but also as officers of the court. This principle, though not codified in a single statute, is embedded in the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32), and reinforced by Ghanaian case law and ethical codes. As officers of the court, lawyers owe duties beyond those to their clients—they are expected to uphold justice, integrity, and the administration of law.

This duty is explicitly affirmed in Rule 1(a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 2020 (L.I. 2423), which states that a lawyer’s conduct must be guided by duties to the client, the court, the legal profession, and the public. In this way, the rules acknowledge that lawyers are not merely agents of their clients but stewards of justice, entrusted with upholding the broader public interest.

Lawyers are not just legal technicians—they are members of society whose integrity matters, especially when justice for society is at stake. They are Ghanaians first, citizens who live in the same communities affected by environmental degradation, economic inequality, and institutional decay. When lawyers choose to defend individuals whose crimes are both evident and harmful to millions, they must ask themselves: What am I enabling?

It is one thing to uphold the law; it is another to weaponise it against justice for society.

In some cases, it does not require legal training to discern the guilt of the accused. The facts are plainly visible—exposed financial crimes, illegal mining operations captured via drone footage, and reports in national news coverage. In such instances, legal representation shifts from seeking truth to deploying strategy: delaying trials, discrediting evidence, and exploiting legal loopholes.

When this occurs, the lawyer becomes part of the machinery that protects criminality—and profits from it. Fees paid with stolen public funds or proceeds from illegal mining are not only unethical; they make the lawyer a direct beneficiary of the crime.

The Ghana Bar Association’s Code of Ethics and the Rules of Professional Conduct clearly prohibit lawyers from aiding clients in criminal or fraudulent conduct. Where the facts are publicly known—as in cases involving illegal mining or the misappropriation of public funds—a lawyer who facilitates delay or obfuscation risks breaching these ethical responsibilities.

ETHICS MUST MATTER

Section 17 of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) empowers the Disciplinary Committee to take action against professional misconduct, including conduct unbecoming of a lawyer, particularly where legal processes are misused to obstruct justice. This statutory authority is reinforced by Rule 9(1) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 2020 (L.I. 2423), which states: “A lawyer shall not advise or assist a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent.”

When a lawyer knowingly enables delay, manipulation, or concealment in the face of clear wrongdoing, such conduct should constitute both ethical and disciplinary breaches.

Legal ethics is not merely about avoiding misconduct in court—it is about making choices that reflect integrity. Lawyers have the right—and arguably the responsibility—to decline clients whose actions clearly harm the public interest.

Some will argue that without legal representation, the judicial process is undermined. But the law also permits citizens to represent themselves in court. No accused person can be said to have been denied a fair trial simply because a lawyer refuses a brief. Article 19(2)(f) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana guarantees that: “A person charged with a criminal offence shall be permitted to defend himself before the court in person or by a lawyer of his choice.”

Furthermore, Section 162A(1) of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Act, 2022 (Act 1079), expressly allows an accused person to enter into a plea agreement with the Attorney-General. This includes options to reduce charges, withdraw charges, or obtain a lesser punishment in exchange for a guilty plea.

This legal mechanism offers lawyers a principled alternative: rather than enabling delay or denial in the face of clear wrongdoing, they can help clients accept responsibility within the bounds of the law—thus reducing harm to society while preserving legal integrity.

There is nothing wrong with defending the accused, even when the lawyer knows the client is guilty—if the intent is to ensure due process. In such cases, ensuring due process does not mean manipulating procedural technicalities—such as filing out of time, resorting to motions instead of writs, or raising jurisdictional objections solely to stall proceedings. True due process is not a game of delay; it must be about securing a fair trial in substance—ensuring that substantive justice is done and seen to be done, that the accused is heard, the evidence is tested, and the truth is pursued.

When legal defence becomes a tool to obstruct justice for someone clearly guilty of crimes against society, that is no longer advocacy—it is complicity.

This reflects the ethical duality at the heart of legal advocacy. When a lawyer defends the innocent and helps secure their freedom, they are upholding individual rights and due process. When a lawyer assists a guilty client in accepting responsibility—through, for instance, a plea bargain—they serve justice for society by ensuring the punishment is fair, humane, and proportionate. Both actions can be expressions of justice.

What ultimately matters are intent and integrity. When the objective is truth and fairness—even in the defence of a guilty client—the lawyer acts ethically. But when the aim is to delay proceedings, manipulate the system, or shield wrongdoing from accountability, the lawyer crosses the line—from advocacy into complicity. When legal defence becomes a tool to obstruct justice for someone clearly guilty of crimes against society, that is no longer the pursuit of fairness; it is an abuse of the legal process. It is this kind of complicity, perhaps, that has given rise to the old myth that lawyers are buried face down.

ACKNOWLEDGING THE DILEMMAS

It must also be recognised that lawyers often operate under complex pressures. In high-profile cases, particularly those involving political or economic power, the decision to reject a brief may come at great personal or professional cost.

Refusing lucrative briefs—especially from politically connected clients or large corporations—can limit a lawyer’s visibility or client base. Junior lawyers may also face pressure from senior partners to accept such briefs, with refusal potentially interpreted as insubordination or lack of ambition. Threats to livelihood or personal safety are genuine concerns.

Ethical lawyering, therefore, is not simply a matter of will; it often requires courage in the face of adversity. These dilemmas deserve acknowledgment, but they must not become excuses for ethical compromise. The duty to the public and to justice, as affirmed in the professional rules, remains intact even in difficult circumstances. Upholding justice is rarely convenient, but it remains essential.

THE RUSH TO LAW: SERVICE OR OPPORTUNITY?

An intriguing development in Ghana today is the growing rush to become a lawyer. University law faculties and professional law schools are seeing unprecedented numbers of applicants, and the legal profession is increasingly viewed as a desirable career path.

This surge begs the question: What is driving this sudden interest?

All things being equal, one would expect that an increase in the number of lawyers should lead to more justice in society—greater access to legal services, more public interest litigation, stronger institutions. Yet, despite the influx of lawyers, impunity persists and, in some cases, appears to be thriving.

Is this rise in legal interest driven by a genuine desire to serve society, or is it a response to a growing market for legal services created by increasing wrongdoing and systemic failure?

There are, broadly speaking, two types of professionals:

·        Those who see a need in society and, by providing a service to meet that need, earn a living.

·        And those who see an opportunity to make money, and thus provide a service that supports that end.

So we must ask: What is motivating this new generation of lawyers? Is it a passion to uphold justice and serve the public good—or the lure of wealth in a system where impunity has created a high-paying demand for legal shields?

Has the rise in corruption and lawlessness inadvertently created a boom in legal services—defences that, while technically lawful, often obstruct justice and protect power? Are we witnessing a profession drawn by the scent of money rather than the call of justice?

These questions must be asked—not to accuse, but to provoke honest self-reflection within the profession. Because if the motive is primarily profit, then the conscience of the legal system is in peril. But if the motivation is rooted in service, integrity, and justice, then there is still hope.

TIME TO DRAW THE LINE

The legal profession must remain a pillar of justice in the fight against corruption and impunity—not a loophole for lawbreakers. Lawyers are not merely advocates in court; they are actors in society. When they defend conduct that clearly undermines the public good, especially with an attitude of “catch us if you can,” they do more than protect wrongdoing—they erode the very communities they belong to.

If we are serious about resetting this country, a shift in mindset is essential. Legal skills must not be auctioned to the highest bidder. In the fight for Ghana’s future—for justice, for the environment, and for institutional integrity—lawyers must choose justice over convenience, integrity over income, and ethics over the ego of winning

Because true justice is not just about what happens in the courtroom. It is about standing up for what is right, even before the trial begins.

 

CONCLUSION: CROSSROADS OF CONSCIENCE

The legal profession in Ghana stands at a defining moment. Confronted with growing public harm - from corruption, environmental destruction, and abuse of power - lawyers must choose whether to remain passive technicians of the law or become active stewards of conscience and accountability in society. Upholding the law must not mean abandoning morality, and being a legal advocate must never become an excuse to aid impunity.

Lawyers should not be hired guns; they are officers of the court, entrusted with defending the public interest. With that trust comes responsibility: to reject briefs that weaponise the law against justice, to act with integrity even when no one is watching, and to use legal skill not as a shield for the powerful but as a voice for the voiceless.

A just society cannot be built by a legal system that looks away. It begins with lawyers courageous enough to draw the line.

In the fight against illegal mining and corruption, imagine a Ghana where lawyers take a stand: no defence for corruption or environmental destruction. The message would be loud and clear—society will no longer normalise or sanitise these crimes through technical defences and courtroom theatrics.

If potential offenders knew they would be left to face the courts alone, without professional backing to manipulate the system, they might think twice. In this sense, ethical lawyering becomes a strategic deterrent.