Lately, legal education in Ghana has been subjected to intense public scrutiny stemming from the release of the results of the Bar examinations. The failure rate has been described as unacceptable, disappointing and unprecedented.

The law students at the centre of this waited for close to nine months for the release of their results. That must have been a long wait. According to the release 91 students out of a total of 474 students passed all ten courses, 177 of them have referrals in either one or two subjects and the remaining students are expected to repeat the academic year. That is shocking and heartbreaking.

As aptly put by the renowned Jamaican singer, Bob Marley in one of his songs, “He who feels it, knows it more”, the outbursts of the students must be taken in good faith because they are the ones who find themselves in the situation. Having experienced same, I believe I am in a better position to share my view.

I gained admission into the Ghana School of Law (GSL) in 2015. The joy of sailing through the required entrance examination and interview was ephemeral. This is because that academic year group was part of the first batch of students marked to go through a new system proposed by the General Legal Council (GLC). Under this new system, an Independent Examination Board (popularly known as the ‘IEB’) is in charge of the conduct of interviews and examinations. In every sense of the word, we were used as the ‘guinea pigs’ of the new system. The anxiety of what the future held for us and our fate under this new system heightened by the day. In no time, we had to cut short the celebration of our victorious entry into the GSL and sit ourselves down to study.

The Ghana School of Law had just transitioned from an old system which had come under serious backlash. Under the old system, law lecturers set their own questions. The same lecturers marked the scripts. Students hardly complained of questions which had been set outside the required syllabi.

According to one school of thought, the old system was quite favourable. The argument proffered is that questions set by the lecturers certainly emanated from what the lecturers had taught their students and nothing more. Students were spared heartbreaks and surprises. Nonetheless, various concerns of leakages and favouritism were raised against this system leading to the setting up of an independent body to correct the wrongs.

The current system, in which I found myself, takes away the initial power of lecturers to set questions and mark scripts. It entrusts that power into the hands of the IEB. One of the arguments in support of the IEB is that stringent checks are now in place to prevent any unwanted leakages associated with conducting exams. Secondly, it reposes some trust in the system and quality of the grades of students. In all honesty, credence must be given to the IEB with regards to the incidence of leakages since its inception.

Having had a personal feel of the new system under the IEB, what it takes to go through the four walls of the Ghana School of Law, and sailing through to become a young lawyer at the Ghana Bar, I can confidently say that in spite of the set objectives for the IEB, the system is fraught with several challenges. I, therefore, identify with the plight of the current batch of law students.

There have been myriad reactions to the mass failure rate recorded this time around. Many opinions expressed so far seem to suggest that the students did not prepare adequately or were simply lazy. Another section of the public believes that the failure rate is nothing new and quite expected of such professional examinations. I find these reasons quite untenable and unfair to the students knowing what it takes to prepare for law exams.

I will not lengthen my discussion by elaborating on the long lecture hours, sleepless nights and the stress associated with law school. On the blind side of what actually pertains on the ground, it is easier to suggest these reasons but having passed through successfully, I am of the view that it is dependent on dint of hard work, proper systems in place and for the religious ones, grace.

Other suggestions have been linked or attributed to the inefficiency of the law lecturers. In my candid view, the majority of the lecturers are experienced and have been doing this for years. In that regard, the lecturers must be given their due commendation. It is rather unfortunate that, the system as it stands does not convincingly reward hard work. It is therefore not guaranteed that once a student puts in all the effort, he or she is guaranteed of a pass. I would, therefore, urge the public to hasten slowly in passing judgment on these affected students.

The real factors that require serious consideration include an efficient system for marking scripts and collating marks, provision of clearly spelt out requirements of the examining body, reduced incidence of questions falling outside the scope of the set syllabi and the many conditions that come with answering questions in the examination room.

The structures currently in place under the IEB are quite burdensome on the average law student. What I found unfortunate over the period of my study was that the institutionalization of the IEB, aimed at correcting the deficiencies of the old system rather turns out to worsen the plight of students.

As with the setting up of any novel body, many challenges are likely to be faced. I beg to differ from persons who seek to compare the system in place to that of other professional bodies such as ACCA, CIMA and the rest. These professional bodies are relatively old, well grounded and have international best practices in place. The IEB, on the other hand, is a novel institution under Ghanaian legal education. With time the structures can be fine-tuned to address the current concerns of both the GLC and the students.

Many have raised the issue of the legality of the IEB. That in my view is quite important but does not have a direct bearing on the performance of these students. Assuming without admitting that the IEB is a legal body backed by statute, the prevailing situation will still persist until reforms are made. This is because the problems the students are encountering now are as a result of how the IEB is conducting its business.

In my estimation, the reasons accounting for the failure rate are that;

1. The one-year period allotted for lectures and examinations is rather too short. Students have to study and prepare for ten courses over a period of one year as opposed to the two-year study period which earlier existed coupled with long lecture hours. I remember how tedious it was to sit through lectures from as early as 7 am to 6 pm.

2. For most courses, there was lack of comprehensive course outlines or syllabi. That notwithstanding tuition by the lecturers was commendable. The problem in my belief is that the lecturers themselves were not definite as to the scope within which the pool of questions was likely to fall and thus they could not give students any hint of what to expect from the IEB during exams.

3. Lack of conduct of interim assessments before the main exams.

4. The constitution of the IEB and relevant questions desired to be answered were left to speculation and swathed in some sort of secrecy.

Consequently, I suggest that;

1. The study period should be extended in order to enable students to prepare adequately for the exams. One year for ten courses is woefully inadequate. Once the study period is lengthened, the number of lecture hours in a day must be reduced so as to enable the students to get adequate time for personal studies and revision.

2. Comprehensive course outlines should be given at the commencement of the academic year. In consequence, questions set by the IEB must be a true reflection of what the students were taught or advised to read. Clearly, it is unfair to present students with questions outside the scope of what the course outlines entail.

3. Students who have failed papers should be given the opportunity to see their scripts without stress and the cost of remarking the script must come at minimal cost to the student.

4. There should be a synergy between the lecturers and the IEB. Lecturers must then be able to communicate to the students the expectation of the body.

5. Periodic interim assessments should be conducted

In conclusion, the notion of an independent body manning the conduct of Bar examinations is not a new phenomenon. The idea and institutionalization of the IEB are laudable as evidenced in other jurisdictions where Bar examinations are similarly conducted by independent boards of examiners. Yet, our case reflects a failure to adopt the right approach towards the conduct of examinations, interviews and all other related matters. The necessary steps should be taken to remedy the situation. Until that is done, it is unfair to mete out these unfortunate consequences on the students who not only suffer emotional turmoil but financial handicaps as well.

In spite of all these the nobility of the legal profession still remains.