To the extent that a Committee set up by Parliament is a body under the Legislative Arm of the Ghanaian government, and the General Legal Council (GLC) is a body set up by and under the Judicial Arm of the Ghanaian Government, the finding of the said Committee with specific reference to the Petitions by the SRC of the Ghana School of Law (GSL) and its Lecturers, cannot be said to be Orders properly so called, but mere recommendations which the General Legal Council (GLC) may or may not adopt.
The General Legal Council was set up in 1960 by an Act of Parliament to consolidate and amend the law relating to the Legal Profession in Ghana. The Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32). A function of the GLC is to regulate legal education in the country. As part of doing so, it has the discretion to adopt and any time and at any point any measures which the Council deems to be appropriate, safe for what has been expressly prohibited by the/an Act. When such discretion is being exercised, unless it violates any of the principles set out under the rules of fairness, reasonableness and equity, such exercise of discretionary power cannot be questioned by any governmental body. Not even the Courts.
So the Supreme Court of Ghana held in the case of Abu Ramadan v EC (No.2), that where the court would have to descend into an arena where it may have to dictate on a day by day basis what an organ of government should do, they will not make any such order, since the said orders will overburden the Supreme Court. So the Courts will normally term such a matter as being a political question since it only calls the for the Courts to exercise its powers in the extreme of posing its nose and tentacles into the deep and secret affairs of an independent constitutional body.
When a Petition (which is different from a Petition in the Legal Sense as defined by the Black’s Law Dictionary) is sent to Parliament, the reliefs being sought can only be granted per the mandates of Parliament as approved by the laws of Ghana. Throughout the political history of Ghana, safe for military regimes, no Organ of Government (The Executive and The Legislature) has the most power to order a body or an institution to comply with a directive than the powers vested in the Judiciary by the Constitution. Although it is trite law that the President of the Republic of Ghana cannot be personally sued or subpoenaed (Judicial order to appear in court) in his name and capacity as the President for acts done in relation to the office as Presidency, the rules of Evidence make it clear that the Courts have the power to order a competent witness to appear and to testify. To this end, it is clear that the President of the Republic can be subpoenaed in court to testify in a matter, not in the capacity as the President, but as an independent, competent or credible individual witness.
Unless we distinguish between a Petition in the legal sense, which is a prayer to the Courts to grant an order in the form of reliefs where necessary, a Petition in the lose sense (not backed by an order of the court) cannot be said to be a Legal Order, the nature of which makes amounts to an offence upon failure to obey. Parliament can only advise and make recommendations to the GLC. It is unfortunate that the President of the Republic sides with the GLC in respect of the actions and inactions being complained of. The GLC is accountable to the Judiciary. The best way I think the said recommendations must be handled by Parliament, is to have it submitted to the Chief Justice through the President for a proper and peaceful settlement to be made. In that regard, success shall at least reign in the hearts of the petitioners.