….On Lawyer’s qualification & alleged wrongful enrolment at Ghana School of Law
Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie of the Supreme Court, delivered a surprising ruling yesterday at the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council (GLC) regarding the alleged wrongful enrolment of Josephine Sekyi Hughes, daughter of former Speaker of Parliament, Ebenezer Sekyi Hughes, in the Post-Call Conversion Course in 2004.
The Council, failed to determine what could have been a landmark ruling concerning qualification for enrollment at the Ghana School of Law.
The ruling also raised broader concerns about whether the institution properly vetted documents submitted by applicants before their admission.
The ruling, delivered on March 13, 2025, involved a panel consisting of Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, Justice Avril Johnson, Lawyer Sam Okudzeto, and Lawyer Tony Forson.
The matter arose from a complaint lodged by Charles William Zwennes and his cousin, Peter Raymond Zwennes, who challenged the legitimacy of Josephine Sekyi Hughes’s enrollment in the Post-Call Conversion Course in 2004.
The complainants, argued that she had presented herself as eligible for the course, despite never being called to the Bar of England and Wales.
Furthermore, she was not listed on the Roll of Solicitors in England and Wales. The central question was: What qualification did she submit to gain admission in Ghana, ultimately allowing her to sit for the course and obtain rights of audience to practise in Ghanaian courts?
A report by Kroll, a leading independent provider of risk and financial advisory solutions, obtained by The Herald, revealed troubling findings.
According to the report christened the Volta Report, and dated October 19, 2024, the Solicitors Regulation Authority of the UK, confirmed in writing that Josephine Hughes is not currently or in the past recorded as a qualified solicitor.
Independent investigations found no evidence that she had fully qualified as a lawyer or had the right to practise law in the UK, with strong indications to the contrary.
Correspondence from relevant authorities was included as appendices, with further responses expected in due course.
Despite these findings, the GLC’s Disciplinary Committee ruled that Josephine Sekyi Hughes, had duly attended the Ghana School of Law and was called to the Ghana Bar.
The ruling stated: “Upon receiving the letter from the Ghana Law School, we have come to the finding that the respondent duly attended the Law School and was duly called as a lawyer to the Ghana Bar. The complaint, therefore, lacks merit and is dismissed.”
Critics have pointed out that the law school’s letter merely confirmed her attendance on the course—something never in dispute. They argued that the key issue was her eligibility to enroll in the first place.
The complainants accused the Disciplinary Committee of evading the core issue, likening its approach to an “ostrich sticking its head in the sand.”
Justice Baffoe-Bonnie indicated that the Committee lacked jurisdiction to scrutinise the circumstances surrounding her initial enrolment, suggesting that the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council may not hold individuals accountable for illegally gaining admission to legal training programmes.
This ruling may spark renewed debate over the oversight and regulatory mechanisms governing legal education and professional qualification in Ghana.
The Herald is informed that the complaint to the D.C. of the GLC, was never about whether or not she passed the Post-Call Conversion Course for Call to the Ghana Bar.
The complaint was that she was not eligible in 2003 for enrolment onto the course, because the Post-Call Course is reserved for Lawyers who are already qualified in the U.K. to practice there, and she is not.
Charles William Zwennes and his cousin, Peter Raymond Zwennes, went to the D.C. of the GLC, because it is a regulatory body that protects the citizenry from being prey to persons who are not satisfactorily trained to represent and defend their legal interests.
The complaint to the D.C. was that her father, the ex-Speaker, had tried to sneak her into a partnership with the firm. When he first proposed her in 2009, they were forced to turn her down because her CV showed that she was not a qualified U.K. lawyer.
Strangely, she managed to get her to enroll at the Ghana School of Law and do the Post-Call Conversion Course here in Ghana, reserved for qualified U.K. lawyers only.
Charles and Peter, had turned Josephine down, but Sekyi Hughes, decided to wait and popped up after the death of CBK Zwennes to get her entered into the register of partnership at the Registrar General’s Department, arguing that as the last surviving partner, he was making his daughter his partner.
He had to declare himself the last surviving partner, because acknowledging Charles and Peter as co-partners, would have meant that he would still need their consent before Josephine could become a partner of the firm. The two had already rejected her in 2009 because they had doubts about her qualifications.
The firm’s documents, which had existed since 1956, were removedand replaced with documents reflecting only Sekyi Hughes and his daughter as partners.
Sources in the Gaisie Zwennes Hughes & Co said, “After doctoring the records, he stayed quiet and said nothing to us … we have been practicing here as owners of our firm, which we are, and for over five years after CBK’s death, he never challenged us. We were the ones to sue him after we discovered that he had falsely doctored the records. The Registrar asked him to rectify the falsehood filed, but he refused, and so we sued him.
Whilst suing him, we also pointed out to the D.C. of the GLC that his daughter couldn’t possibly be a suitably qualified lawyer. We intend to have this declared because once she is exposed as not being a suitably qualified lawyer, then she could never be a partner of our firm, since only lawyers can be made partners of a law firm”.
The D.C. of the GLC has engaged in some “legal gymnastics” and suggested at the last date that since they are established to supervise lawyers, they lack jurisdiction over non-lawyers.As a result the damning evidence shown from the Volta Report which is the independent investigation conducted in England showing she is not a qualified lawyer in the UK,was totally ignored by the D.C. of the GLC in their ruling.
“Interestingly, the legal gymnastics went like this:The complaint was made to the D.C. of the GLC in 2022. She did not respond, despite having been served on a number of occasions. We complained that she was not eligible for enrolment on the Post-Call Course. Finally, in the middle of last year, JBB said she didn’t have to provide her certificate to prove her eligibility and that if we were claiming she wasn’t qualified from the U.K., then we should prove it. So we engaged an independent investigation in London, which saw to the Volta Report. It was delivered to the D.C. in time for last year’s November hearing”.
At that hearing, the D.C. said they had written to the Law School asking them to supply their enrollment requirements for the Post-Call Course now and as it stood in 2003-2004. When the law school letter came, it did not answer those questions at all. It merely stated that she enrolled for the post-call course and passed it.
The law school goes on to say that it “presumes regularity of her enrolment procedure onto the Post-Call Course.” The D.C., in turn, simply relied on that to say that she is duly called in Ghana, although that wasn’t the crux of the matter.
Meanwhile, another document signed by The Herald, showed that Josephne’s lawyer, Daniel Awuku Ofosu, a Partner of Gaisie Zwennes Hughes’s Co, wrote to Edward Forman, refuting the Kroll report authored by Alexander Booth and Benedict Hamilton, Kroll’s Managing Directors and furnished the General Legs Council of Ghana.
Josephine’s lawyers in a letter dated November 27, 2024, raised three key issues in the Kroll report, describing them as “inaccurate.” Josephine demanded a retraction, or she would take legal action against the Kroll managing directors in both America and the UK.
Firstly, it said the claim that Kroll has been instructed by Gaisie Zwennes Hughes & Co. to carry out our investigation into the legal qualification of a Ghanaian lawyer, Josephine Hughes, was untrue, as “the Partners of Gaisie Zwennes Hughes & Co have not instructed or approved the engagement of Kroll for any such investigations”.
Charles Zwennes and Peter Zwennes, who were mentioned in the report, are in court seeking to become partners in the firm Gaisie Zwennes Hughes & Co, adding, “We have attached information about the composition of the partnership of Gaisie Zwennes Hughes & Co for yourinformation. Please note that Charles Bartels Kwesi Zwennes is mentioned in the documents as the deceased father of the person who instructed you. His father was a Partner in the firm. Charles Zwennes is not”.
“We have read the report presented to Charles Zwennes, and your findings are inaccurate, and your processes are not comprehensive, to say the least. Under no circumstances has our firm’s partner Josephine Hughes ever stated anywhere that she was a solicitor and or Barrister in England and Wales. Contacting these organisation namely, Solicitor’s Regulation Authority and Bar Council.”.
The letter said “The Bar Standards Board and The Law Society gives the impression that she is passing off as a member of their organization when she has not, and you have no evidence that she has done such a thing. Kroll contacting them and alleging that she has conducted herself in an illegal manner with no evidence of that is damaging to her reputation and career.
On whether Josephine Hughes achieved an LPC, her lawyer stated that “Confirmation of evidence of one having attended a university comes from the office of the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor and or the Registrar of a university, however “We note that your report refers to “your source” stating that Josephine Hughes may have complete Stage 1 DIP. This is inaccurate”.
It said, “Josephine Mughes attended the University of Exeter and completed the LPC. She was awarded the Postgraduate Diploma in Legal Practice in October 2001 on completion of the course. A telephone Callto the Legal Department of the University of Exeter on the 5 August 24 should not under any circumstances be used to prepare a report of such importance. This information should have been obtained from Student records”.
“Your report is being used maliciously by the person who instructed you to damage Josephine Hughes’s reputation and career”, adding “We are by this letter asking you to: Retract and correct your report and go back to the University of Exeter for proper verification as your report is full of inaccuracies, malicious content, and false statements which is damaging to Josephine Hughes’ reputation.
We reserve the right to commence legal proceedings against you in England and the United States of America for libel should you fail to remedy or rectify your report.
Daniel Awuku Ofosu, attached the Kroll report, a certified copy of the Company profile from the registrar of companies, and a Copy of the Writ filed by Charles and Peter.
It is not clear, if Kroll withdrew the report.
