The Supreme Court and junior counsel: An objective legal analysis of the Serwaa Amihere incident and the broader question of experience requirements at the apex court

On June 2, 2026, lawyer and media personality Joyce Serwaa Amihere appeared before the Supreme Court of Ghana to move her first application. According to reports, the Court expressed displeasure, "scolding" her for appearing and leading a one-year-old lawyer without a "Senior" counsel present. The incident, captured in a news graphic dated June 3, 2026, has reignited a long-standing debate within Ghana's legal profession: should junior lawyers be permitted to appear before the Supreme Court unaccompanied by senior counsel, or does the apex court's unique jurisdiction demand the presence of experienced advocates?

This article offers an objective legal analysis of the issue, examining the statutory framework, the Supreme Court's inherent powers, the competing policy interests, and comparative jurisdictions.

The Factual and Legal Context
Serwaa Amihere was called to the Ghana Bar in October 2025, making her a relatively new practitioner at the time of her Supreme Court appearance. Under Ghana's Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32), newly qualified lawyers must complete a six-month pupillage under a lawyer of not less than seven years' standing before obtaining a solicitor's license.

The General Legal Council's Pupillage Guidelines emphasize that this apprenticeship is designed to equip new lawyers with courtroom etiquette, procedural knowledge, and practical advocacy skills.

However, once called to the Bar and duly licensed, a lawyer becomes an officer of the court with a right of audience before all courts in Ghana. As one legal commentator noted, "every lawyer who is called to the bar even a day after his or her pupilage is entitled to have audience before all courts without exception."

This right is not expressly limited by statute based on years of practice or court hierarchy.

The Supreme Court of Ghana is governed by the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I. 16), which regulate procedure but do not explicitly prohibit junior lawyers from appearing before the Court or mandate that they be accompanied by senior counsel.

Similarly, the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 2020 (L.I. 2423), while imposing standards of conduct, do not contain a blanket requirement for junior lawyers to appear with senior counsel at the Supreme Court.

Notably, Ghana does have a "Senior Advocate of Ghana" (SAG) scheme instituted by the Ghana Bar Association, but this was challenged in Ward-Brew v Ghana Bar Association, where the court held that the General Legal Council, not the Bar Association, has sole authority over professional standards and conduct.

The SAG designation remains a voluntary, association-based title rather than a statutory prerequisite for Supreme Court practice.

The Supreme Court's Position: Inherent Jurisdiction and Institutional Concerns

The Supreme Court's reaction to Ms. Amihere's appearance must be understood within the framework of the Court's inherent jurisdiction to regulate its own proceedings. As the final court of appeal under Article 129 of the 1992 Constitution, the Supreme Court has broad powers to ensure that justice is administered efficiently and that the dignity of the court is maintained.

From the Court's perspective, several legitimate concerns arise when junior lawyers appear before it without senior guidance.

1. Complexity of Supreme Court Litigation: The Supreme Court primarily handles constitutional interpretations, appeals on points of law, and matters of grave public importance. These cases often involve nuanced legal doctrines, extensive case law analysis, and procedural rigor that typically comes with years of practice. The Court may reasonably be concerned that a lawyer with only one year of practice may lack the depth of experience to navigate these complexities effectively, potentially compromising the quality of arguments and, by extension, the administration of justice.

2. Protection of Clients' Interests: Litigants before the Supreme Court often have substantial rights at stake. The Court's admonishment may be viewed as a protective measure, ensuring that clients receive competent representation commensurate with the stakes involved. The principle that "the sins of counsel should not be visited on the client" is well-established in Ghanaian jurisprudence, and the Court may see the presence of senior counsel as a safeguard against procedural or substantive errors that could prejudice a litigant's case.

3. Courtroom Decorum and Efficiency: The Supreme Court operates under significant time constraints. Junior counsel, still mastering the art of oral advocacy, may require more time to articulate arguments or respond to judicial questioning. The presence of experienced counsel can ensure that proceedings move smoothly and that the Court's time is used efficiently.

4. Mentorship and Professional Standards: The legal profession has historically relied on a mentorship model. The Court's expectation that a senior lawyer be present may reflect a traditional view that Supreme Court advocacy is a skill best learned through observation and gradual participation under the wing of an experienced advocate, rather than through immediate solo practice.

The Counter-Argument: Stifling Talent and Violating Equal Rights of Audience

Conversely, the position that junior lawyers should be afforded the opportunity to appear before the Supreme Court subject to competence and preparation, is grounded in equally compelling legal and policy considerations.

1. Statutory Right of Audience: As noted, once a lawyer is called to the Bar and holds a valid practicing certificate, they are entitled to appear before "all courts" in Ghana. There is no statutory carve-out excluding the Supreme Court for lawyers below a certain experience threshold. To impose an extralegal requirement of senior accompaniment effectively creates a two-tier Bar, contradicting the statutory framework that treats all licensed practitioners as equally qualified to represent clients.

2. Professional Development and the "Experience Gap": If junior lawyers are systematically barred from Supreme Court appearances, a dangerous experience gap emerges. The next generation of senior counsel can only develop by handling complex matters at the highest level. As one U.S. federal court observed in a judicial order encouraging newer attorneys to argue motions, "Opportunities for Newer Attorneys to speak in federal court are increasingly rare... It is everyone's responsibility to assist in providing substantive experience to our next generation of lawyers."

The same logic applies with greater force to the Supreme Court of Ghana, where the stakes are highest and the learning curve steepest.

3. Discouragement and Elitism: The requirement for senior accompaniment risks creating an elitist culture where Supreme Court practice becomes the exclusive preserve of a small group of established lawyers. This discourages talented young advocates, limits diversity of counsel before the Court, and may concentrate legal expertise in the hands of a few, potentially stifling innovation in legal argumentation.

4. The Question of "Senior" Definition: In the absence of a statutory framework defining who qualifies as "Senior Counsel" for the purpose of Supreme Court appearances, the Court's admonishment raises practical difficulties. Is a lawyer of five years' experience "senior" enough? Ten years? Must they have prior Supreme Court experience? The ambiguity creates uncertainty for young practitioners and their clients, potentially chilling legitimate access to the apex court.

5. Competence Should Be the Standard, Not Chronology: Legal competence is not always coterminous with years of practice. A diligent junior lawyer who has thoroughly researched a matter, mastered the record, and prepared robust arguments may be better equipped than a senior counsel who has merely "lent their name" to the case—a practice that courts in other jurisdictions have criticized.

The focus should be on preparation and capability, not merely years at the Bar.

Comparative Perspectives: How Other Jurisdictions Handle This

A comparative analysis reveals that different legal systems have adopted varied approaches to this question:

India: The Supreme Court of India has formalized a system where "Senior Advocates" (designated by the Court itself) cannot appear without an "Advocate-on-Record" in the Supreme Court, and cannot appear without a junior in other courts.

However, this is a statutory scheme under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, with clear criteria for designation and explicit procedural requirements. Junior advocates are not barred from appearing; rather, the rules regulate the manner of appearance for designated seniors.

United Kingdom: The distinction between Queen's Counsel (now King's Counsel) and junior barristers is historic, but QC status is not a prerequisite for appearing in the Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords). Many complex appellate cases are handled by junior barristers, particularly those with specialized expertise.

United States: There is no formal senior/junior distinction for federal appellate practice. Any lawyer admitted to the Bar of a federal circuit may argue before the Supreme Court (though the separate Bar admission requirement for the U.S. Supreme Court exists). Federal courts have increasingly issued standing orders encouraging junior lawyers to argue motions to address the "experience gap."

Nigeria: Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN) enjoy privileges similar to QCs, but junior counsel regularly appear before the Supreme Court of Nigeria, often leading cases where they have been involved from the trial stage.

Ghana's current position appears to be an informal, practice-based expectation rather than a codified rule, a middle ground that lacks the clarity of the Indian system or the openness of the American approach.

A Proposed Balanced Framework
An objective analysis suggests that neither extreme complete prohibition of junior counsel nor unrestricted solo appearances by lawyers of any experience level, serves the interests of justice or the profession optimally. The following framework is proposed for consideration:

1. Codification of Appearance Rules: If the Supreme Court believes that junior lawyers should be accompanied by senior counsel, this requirement should be formally codified in the Supreme Court Rules or through Practice Directions, with clear definitions of "junior" (e.g., lawyers within their first three years of practice) and "senior" (e.g., lawyers of not less than 10 years' standing with prior appellate experience). This would provide certainty and avoid arbitrary application.

2. A Graduated System of Participation: Rather than outright exclusion, a graduated system could be adopted.

Junior lawyers (0-3 years) may appear before the Supreme Court only as lead counsel in interlocutory applications or with special leave, and must be accompanied by a senior counsel for substantive appeals.

Alternatively, junior lawyers could be permitted to argue specific portions of an appeal under the supervision of senior counsel, as practiced in some U.S. federal courts.

3. Competence-Based Assessment: The Court could adopt a practice of assessing readiness based on the lawyer's demonstrated knowledge of the case and the law, rather than years of practice. A junior lawyer who has clearly mastered the record and legal issues should not be turned away merely because of their call date.

4. Mandatory Pre-Appearance Certification: The General Legal Council or Ghana Bar Association could introduce a certification or accreditation program for lawyers wishing to practice before the Supreme Court, requiring completion of specific appellate advocacy training. This would ensure baseline competence without creating an arbitrary seniority barrier.

5. Protection of Client Choice: Ultimately, the client should have a meaningful say in who represents them. If a client knowingly chooses a junior lawyer—perhaps due to cost considerations, specialized knowledge, or existing solicitor-client relationship—the Court should respect that choice unless there is a clear risk of prejudice to the administration of justice.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court's admonishment of Serwaa Amihere highlights a tension that exists in every mature legal system: balancing the need for experienced advocacy at the highest level with the imperative of nurturing the next generation of legal talent. From a strict legal perspective, the current Ghanaian statute does not expressly prohibit junior lawyers from appearing before the Supreme Court, nor does it mandate senior accompaniment. The Court's position appears to derive from its inherent jurisdiction and traditional professional expectations rather than codified rules.

An objective legal analysis reveals merit on both sides. The Supreme Court's concern for procedural rigor, client protection, and judicial efficiency is legitimate. Equally legitimate is the principle that a licensed lawyer has a statutory right of audience and that professional growth requires exposure to complex appellate work.

The path forward lies not in informal admonishments that create uncertainty, but in clear, principled rules that protect the integrity of the Court while ensuring that Ghana's brightest young legal minds are not permanently shut out from the nation's highest judicial forum. Whether through formalized appearance rules, graduated participation schemes, or competence-based assessments, the legal profession must strike a balance that honors both the dignity of the Supreme Court and the democratic ideal that justice should not be the exclusive preserve of a legal elite.

The Serwaa Amihere incident should thus serve as a catalyst for structured reform rather than a source of discouragement for in the end, the strength of Ghana's legal profession depends not on how well it guards its highest court, but on how effectively it prepares its youngest members to one day preside over it.

   Comments0