When Lawyers Walk Out: A Dangerous Precedent in Ghana’s Courtroom

The recent decision by the lawyers of Kwabena Adu Boahene to stage a walkout in court after the High Court refused to grant an adjournment pending a prohibition application at the Supreme Court has sparked a heated debate about professionalism, ethics, and respect for the judicial process.

In any democracy governed by the rule of law, the courtroom is a sacred arena where justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. For that reason, the conduct of lawyers—who are officers of the court—is expected to reflect respect, restraint, and the highest standards of ethics, even when they disagree with a ruling.

By walking out of court, the lawyers in this case may not have broken a criminal law, but their action was certainly unethical and unprofessional. The Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules clearly demand that counsel must show due respect to the court and avoid conduct likely to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The right thing to do, therefore, would have been to formally register their objection and pursue their application at the Supreme Court while proceedings continued.

A courtroom is not a theatre for protest; it is a forum for legal argument. Walking out undermines both the authority of the court and the very justice process the lawyers are sworn to protect. Worse still, such conduct can harm their client’s case, leaving them unrepresented at a critical moment and possibly biasing the court’s perception of their seriousness or respect for due process.

I am not a legal person, but one doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to know what cannot be done in court. Common sense, decorum, and respect for judicial authority should guide every lawyer’s actions inside that sacred space.

Beyond this individual case, the incident raises a broader concern. Ghana’s judiciary has, in recent years, come under public scrutiny amid claims of political bias and eroding confidence. Actions like these risk deepening public distrust by portraying the legal process as chaotic and emotionally charged rather than rational and principled. Both judges and lawyers share a duty to strengthen, not weaken, public faith in the justice system.

It must also be noted that such walkouts are extremely rare in Ghana’s legal history. While there have been instances where the Ghana Bar Association has collectively withdrawn services in protest—such as on Martyrs’ Day or in earlier decades over specific grievances—it is almost unheard of for lawyers to walk out mid-proceeding in protest of a judicial decision. I stand for correction, but available records suggest this may be one of the very few, if not the first, such instances in a Ghanaian courtroom.

And one cannot help but ask: Are our politicians who double as lawyers introducing their unhealthy walkouts from Parliament into the courtroom? Such habits, if allowed to fester, will only corrode the discipline and dignity that the justice system demands.

In times when citizens already perceive the judiciary as politically influenced, this act was not only ill-timed but deeply regrettable. Our courts deserve firmness, respect, and professionalism—not grandstanding.

Ghanaians are watching!

FAB’s Gist