LAW CLINIC FOR LEADERSHIP OF JRCLS-SIERRA LEONE CHAPTER

          THE JURISTS CENTER COLLABORATIVE TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT

 [ MISSION ]: The training uphold the precept, of the Articles of Faith, Chapter of the Book of Mormon, versus 12, which, I quote;

“We believe in being subject to Kings, Presidents, Rulers, and Magistrates, in obeying, honouring, and sustaining the Law.”

[PURPOSE]:

Whenever, there is an established human interaction from inter-relations, with vested interests, the results, is misunderstanding and dispute, thou, the Church as a community of humans, cannot be excluded, hence, the essence of the Legal aid Department, to serve the Saints, as a complement to the Church Welfare Ministry and Humanitarian aid.

[LEADERSHIP TRAINING]:

On the 25^th and 26^th of September 2026; 9:00am to 5:00pm, of each day, there will be a leadership training sessions for the qualified Elders and Sisters, from the various Wards and Stakes of  the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of Sierra Leone Mission Area, for the J. Reuben Clark Law Society, a comprehensive training, towards their capacity and efficiency, to serve the Mission area of the Church, on the following subjects of legal training;

I.  Mediators for internal grievances, from unexpected Membership Inter-relation conflicts within the Church, as in the Offices of Relief Societies, the Offices of Elders Quorums, the Offices of Bishoperics, and the Offices of Stake Presidencies, for effective Ecclesiastical duties.

II. Leadership Abuses, Marriages and Family Disputes settlement by Mediation, and Arbitration procedures, under the Church Ecclesiastical Tribunal.

III. Types of Legal aid services, for the  Wards and Stakes, as a Welfare Ministry by paralegals.

IV.  Negotiatory defense, against infractions emanating from Church Events and Local Laws, under dispute resolutions.

V. Negotiating skills against disputes, on Church facility management and Local regulatory laws.

VI.  Field Missionaries unexpected infractions, with the local regulatory laws, and negotiatory defense, duty.

VII.  Training on pertinent selected areas of the General Hand book, as Administrative Canonical Laws of the Church, for  the Wards and Stake managements, within the context of Local laws.

[ATTENDANCE FEE]: The fee of participation, including the Lunch to be served, for the two days event, is Nle 350 or $20. Registration forms, are available at the Local wards and Stakes, under the acting JRCLS coordinators for the Church.

[VENUE FOR TRAINING]: It shall be communicated, to fully registered members, for the Training Event.

[TAKE NOTE]: The training session, is a preparation to set-apart the qualified leadership, of the JRCLS Chapter of Sierra Leone, for the coming-up conference in October 2026, under the theme: The Rule of Law and Constitutionalism; the role of the Church.

 

FIRST SCHEDULE

25^TH SEPTEMBER 2026.

 

SUBJECT CODES	SUBJECT  TITLES	TIME
JRCLS-SL- 01	MEDIATION SETTLEMENT	10:00 AM -11:00 AM
JRCLS-SL - 02	ARBITRATION SETTLEMENT	11:00 AM -1:00 PM
	LUNCH SERVICE	1:00 PM -2:00 PM
JRCLS-SL- 03	LEGAL AID AND WELFARE SERVICE	2:00 PM -3:30 PM
CLOSING	QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION	3:30PM -4:30PM

 

SECOND SCHEDULE

26^TH SEPTEMBER 2026.

 

SUBJECT CODES	SUBJECT TITLES	TIME
JRCLS-SL-04	CANON LAWS-GENERAL HAND BOOK	9:00 AM-11:00 AM
JRCLS-SL-05	ECCLESIASTICAL TRIBUNAL	11:30 AM -12:30 PM
	LUNCH SERVICE	12:30 PM – 1:30 PM
JRCLS-SL-06	LOCAL LAWS AND THE CHURCH	1:30 PM - 3:30 PM
CLOSING	QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION	3:30 PM – 4:30PM

__________________________________________

Elder. Emmanuel Tweneboah Senzu, a Jurist, and professor of Constitutional Law and Economic Criminology. Legal aid- Lawyer, for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: J. Reuben Clark Law Society-President, Africa West  Mission Area.

THE LAWS OF GHANA AND POLITICIANS AS LAWYERS

The incessant use of the title Lawyer or Esquire, for politicians serving in Public Offices, more so Legislatures, representing their constituencies, within the Chamber of Parliament, need to be handled with care, in accordance to the regulatory orders, of the Laws of Ghana. Having the article and chosen topic, meant to serve Legal Education purpose, and safeguard media Journalism, towards press release on legal subject.

It must be acknowledged, and by experience admit, in the practice of the law, there are standards of conducts and ethics, very difficult to uphold, as an average political figure, and in most circumstance public officials, whose services of duty, do not fall in the rudiment of Legal system and the Justice Administration. Hence, the framers of the 1992 Constitution of the Fourth Republic, appreciating, the threshold requirement for;

I. The conducts and Ethics, in the practice of Law.

II. The Lawyer and Clients relationship, within the Justice Administration.

Thou, conferring these two major requirements, to the benchmark standards, of who qualifies as a Legislature, under the Laws of Ghana, to be accorded the Parliamentary privileges and immunities, framed the letters of the Law, in the Constitutional provision, to disallow a legislature, to be sworn-in at bar, and practice law, before the Bench of the Judiciary Court, of the Republic of Ghana. As stipulated in Article 94, Section (3) of the 1992 Constitution, Clause (b); which state;

“ A person shall not be eligible to be a member of Parliament, if he is a member of the Police Service, the Prison Service, the Armed Forces, the Judicial Service, the Legal Service, the Civil Service, the Audit Service, the Parliamentary Service, the Statistical Service, the Fire Service, the Customs, Exercise and Preventive Service, the Immigration Service, or the Internal Revenue Service.”

In furtherance, the Article 98, Section (2), states;

“ A member of Parliament, shall not hold any office of profit or emolument, whether private or public, and either directly or indirectly, unless permitted to do so, by the Speaker, acting on the recommendations of a committee of Parliament.”

Article 94 and 98 of the Act of Parliament, will be cited in tandem with the Legal profession (Conduct and Etiquette ) Rules [2020 (L.I. 2423)], the Rule 23, Clause (6) and (7), hence, quote as follows;

Clause (6) “ Where a member of a Law Firm, takes up a public office, that member shall not practice privately.”

Clause (7) “ Where the public office taken-up by the member of a Law Firm, is that of a Minister of State, Deputy Minister, or Member of Parliament, may practice subject to the permission of the Speaker.”

The Clause (7) of the Rule 23, of the Legal Professional code, is justified, in it interpretation under the provision of Article 103, Section 6, Clause (a), (b), (c ), as a Constitutional provision of the Act of Parliament, which, I quote;

“ A Committee appointed under this Article, shall have the powers, rights and privileges of the High Court, or a Justice of the High Court, at a trial for;

Clause (a) “ Enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise”.

Clause (b) “ Compelling the production of documents", and

Clause (c ) “ Issuing a commission , or request to examine witnesses abroad".

It is therefore, persuasive, and legally established, that a Legislature, as a qualified Lawyer, could only practice, within the Chamber of Parliament, under a prerogative license of permission, by the Speaker of Parliament.

It is thereby conclusive, as a member of Parliament, being a qualified lawyer, opt to practice, out of the boundary of Parliamentary Chamber, to the Judicial Court of competent jurisdiction, is to admit, he has stripped himself officially, of all privileges and qualified immunities accorded onto, by the Act of Parliament, as stipulated in Article 115, 116, 117, 118, 119 and 120 of the 1992 Constitution of the  Fourth Republic of Ghana, and susceptible to be sued or summoned before any Judiciary Court of Ghana, by any one, who consider the adventure necessary, to bear the full consequence, of his actions to the latter, like any ordinary citizen, before a bench of a Competent jurisdiction of a Judicial Court, without any intervention, of the Speaker of Parliament.

 

REFERENCE

n The 1992 Constitution of the Fourth Republic of Ghana, as amended in 1996.

n Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rule [2020 (L.I. 2423)].

 

† Emmanuel Tweneboah Senzu, professor of Constitutional Law and Economic Criminology, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University. Utah, United States. Ghana School of Law, Greater Accra. West Africa.

 

 

 

 

THE AUTHORITY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION AND THE JURIDICAL DOCTRINE

            The question, as well the debate of, who have the authority to interpret the Constitution, in other to have effects on government, is as old as the birth of Constitutional theory, and the principle of separation of power.

 The author argument, in favour of contemporary practice, will draw relevant reference, from the American Jurisprudence, accompanied with famous legal assertions, acknowledging her core-strength for Constitutional law theory, within the legal realm, though a former colony of the British Empire, with England having the progeny right, to the Common law doctrine.

The author subscribe to the debate, that each branch of government, have the authority to interpret the constitutional provision, in it orbit of operations, having regard to the essence that, all elected Office-holders, takes an oath to uphold the Constitution.

And furthermore, acknowledge the facts that, Constitutional interpretation, has it Political and administrative doctrine, as well, the Economic and policy doctrine, which are unique of it purpose, as the Marshall Court in declaration to Marbury remedy stated, and shall quote as follows;

“ Where the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the Executive, merely to execute the will of the President, or rather to act in cases, in which the Executive possesses constitution or legal discretion, nothing can be mere perfectly clear, than that their acts are only politically examinable.”

 However, the Chief Justice John Marshall, went further to dissent, and I quote,

“The Constitution imposes limits on government powers, and that these limits are meaningless, unless subject to Judicial enforcement.”

Thou, such an assertion has been the axiomatic of Juridical doctrine, in upholding the rule of law and Justice, as a scope of Constitutional Interpretation, for Judges.

Thereby, makes the Judicial Institution to be solely, and constitutionally empowered, to resolve legal disagreement or controversies, as affirmed in the famous declaration of the Marshall Court, of Marbury v. Madison (1803), and I quote,

"It is emphatically the province, and duty of the Judicial department, to say what the Law is".

The above statement of quote, as a legal maxim, from the verdict of the Marshall Court, governs the authority for ‘Judicial Review’ in addressing legal controversies, and has been a working expansion theory of the American Court, after their succession from the British Imperial rule, as argued by Dudley O. McGovney (1877-1947). ‘Judicial Review’ as a doctrine, was birth as a dissenting opinion from Sir. Edward Coke, the Chief Justice, of the Court of Common pleas of England, and affirmed by the Court, during the Judgement declaration of Dr. Bonham’s case, in the year (1610). Which, I quote an abstract section of the verdict,

“When an Act of Parliament is against Common Right and Reason, or Repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the Common law will control it, and adjudge such act to be void”.

Thou, there is enormous expectations on modern Court system, under sophisticated political regimes, to know, ‘when’ and ‘how’ to negotiate their path, in upholding the sacrosanct of the Court, as well the sanctity and reputation of it duty, and mandate to the law. For her Ministry, is to strictly administer, and uphold the doctrine of the Rule of law, and Justice, nothing less or more, hence, the wisdom to apply Judiciability principle, as a discretionary doctrine, to decline review, where prudence counsels Judicial avoidance, is the cornerstone of  Judicial power, and enforceable authority in the law.

  

[REFERENCE]

English cases on Constitutional law, 8 co. rep. 114a, 118a (1610).

Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S at 176 (1803).

Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S at 177 (1803).

McGovney, O. D., British origin of Judicial Review of Legislation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 93, Issue No. 2 (1944).

 _____________________________________________________

†Emmanuel Tweneboah Senzu, professor of Constitutional Law and Economic Criminology, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Provo, Utah, USA. A Cross-Departmental fellow, University of Ghana, and the Central University Faculty of Law. Africa.

 

THE DEPTH REQUIRED IN JUDICIAL LEGAL REASONING

 

                       Chief Justice, John Marshall, Portrait © Library of Congress. USA.

In all forms of Court legal reasoning, which commence from the ‘Bench’, on basis of legal controversies or ‘cases at Bar’, especially, the appellate Court legal decisions, are highly exalted in Law Books, as the final arbiter in case law development. And in the rudiments of case law, the decisions of the ‘Supreme Court’, is considered as the finest of the Common –Law doctrine, and sovereignty, to any case law developed, in the field of that case analysis, unless such decisions are overturned, per the circumstantial changes of factors to time, for such a case or similar of it kind. What grants such distinctive prowess to the outcome of the Courts decisions, and Judicial Powers? Is never merely ‘common sense’ in evaluating the law cum interpretations, which seems to be a common notion of first degree legal practitioners at Bar, and the perception of Social media journalists, about the Law, and Judicial reasoning, on matters of legal controversies.

 

The reputation of the Bench, and the Power of the Court, depends on these two major Principles outlined below, which has to be protected by Judges, under oaths at any given jurisdiction. And they are;

i. The Law being boldly asserted, and plausibly maintained.

ii. The Enforcement power of the Court decisions, within it jurisdiction.

 

In other to achieve these two principles, as stated above, the courts decisions are required to carefully follow, a set-out procedural rules, which considers in-depth analysis of circumstantial factors, and comparative case-study, to uphold the doctrine of ‘stare decisis’, then, with deep understanding, and appreciation to the invisible political interest, and forces at play, as well, the constitutional powers, and it limitations, which, the Judges holds as a Court, before other arms of government, in relation to a given case, with the ultimate purpose, to entrench execution of orders by the Courts, without antagonism and reputation struggle.

 

Furthermore, the consideration of the decisions of the Court, as a bearing on socio-economic implications, towards prevailing circumstance, as well to future policy, and the aim to plausible maintained the law, while defending the powers and reputation of the Judicial arm of Government, the Supreme Court of certain jurisdictions, has carefully established the scope of Judicial review, in accordance to their Constitutional mandate, to guide ‘when’, as well ‘why’ and ‘how’ to assume authority, to intervene in legal controversies of constitutional concerns, in a manner to avoid the ‘enforcement power’ of the Court, into a political ridicule, by other arms of government.

 A classic example to such cases, is ‘Marbury vs. Madison’, thus, analyzing the strings of political forces, as circumstance around the case, in the year (1801); Robert G. McCloskey wrote in his work, and I quote him;

“ the decision of the Courts, was a masterwork of indirection, a brilliant presentation of the Chief Justice John Marshall’s capacity, to sides-step danger, while seeming to Court it, to advance in one direction, while his opponents were looking in another.”

 

This was an event, exhibited in wisdom, of the exemplary legal reasoning skills, of the John Marshall Court (1779–1835), considered as the keystone of the American constitutional law-arch, as James A. Garfield posits,

 

“Marshall found the constitutional papers; and he made it power.”

 

The Chief Justice, John Marshall was brilliant to know ‘when’ and ‘how’ to insulate the reputation of the Courts, from external danger, emanating from other arms of government, by upholding to the principles of Justiciability doctrine, and how to exert the powers of the Courts, in it full enforceable strength, to a right timing.

 

 

[Reference]

1. Madison, The Emergency of a ‘Great Case’ 38 Wake Forest L. Rev. 375 (2003).

2. Robert  G. McCloskey, The American Supreme Court, 40 (1960).

3. William D. Pederson and Norman W. Provizer, Great Justice of the U.S Supreme Court, 3 (1993).

4. Senzu, T. E., Complex Judicial decisions: To Judge between the law and public Choices. Blackstone Journal for Asia-Africa Jurists, 3rd.ed., 9(47):1-5, (2026). Philpapers Publishers.

 

-----------------------------------------------------

†Emmanuel Tweneboah Senzu, professor of Constitutional Law and Economic Criminology, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Provo, Utah, USA. A Cross-Departmental fellow, University of Ghana, and the Central University Faculty of Law, Ghana. Africa.