Going to court, for many people, is not something they would ordinarily consider doing unless they have a case to pursue, a dispute to resolve, or an obligation to fulfill. The courtroom is probably the last place they would choose to visit. The men and women in wigs and gowns, the formality of the proceedings, and the unfamiliar language of the law often make courts feel like exclusive spaces reserved strictly for lawyers and those who have business before them.
For some, the courtroom carries an intimidating gravity, a place to avoid unless circumstances leave them with no choice. There is also the familiar apprehension that entering a courtroom without knowing what to expect could lead to trouble. Stories about contempt of court and swift consequences for minor missteps only reinforce that fear. The safest option, therefore, appears to be staying away.
But what if you have no case to pursue? What if you simply want to sit in the public gallery, observe a trial, and see how lawyers present their cases and how judges administer justice? Must you have a personal dispute before you can walk into a courtroom?
Justice in Public
A Facebook post by lawyer Kwame Boafo Akuffo, of Akropong Akwapim, offers an engaging starting point for these questions. In the post, he announced that he would be conducting the cross-examination of a witness at Commercial Court 9 on the 2nd and 3rd of November 2026 at 11 a.m. He wrote:
“I have the pleasure to inform law students and young lawyers that I will be conducting the cross-examination of a witness in Commercial Court 9 on the 2nd and 3rd of November 2026 at 11 a.m. There are a few things you can learn from me. I have said enough.”
The invitation is something unusual. Rarely would a lawyer do such. But beyond the invitation itself, the post raises a question of wider public interest about whether there exists a clear legal basis for attending court simply to observe proceedings when you are not a party to the case.
An important feature of Ghana’s legal system is the principle of open justice. The fundamental idea is that justice should ordinarily be administered in public, allowing people to observe how judicial decisions are reached. Public hearings promote transparency and accountability, helping to sustain confidence in the administration of justice.
Article 126(3) of the 1992 Constitution establishes this principle in clear terms, providing that the proceedings of every court shall be held in public unless otherwise ordered by a court in the interests of public morality, public safety, or public order. Article 19 repeats this position, ensuring that public proceedings remain the standard across both criminal and civil matters.
This same rule is expressly reflected in Order 1, Rule 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47). It provides that proceedings and judgments must be held in public unless a judge specifically orders otherwise for reason of public safety or order, recording those reasons on file.
Taken together, these provisions establish a clear reality: court proceedings are ordinarily public. The law does not regard the courtroom as a private enclosure reserved exclusively for those with a case on the list.
Public Does Not Mean Without Limits
The principle of open justice, however, does not mean that every proceeding must be open to everyone under all circumstances. The law balances public access with the need to protect sensitive matters, such as the welfare of children, the private lives of individuals, or public safety.
These exceptions serve an important purpose. While public access allows society to inspect the work of the courts, unrestricted publicity in every situation could cause genuine harm or undermine the rights of vulnerable persons.
There is also a clear distinction between observing a trial and recording it. Sitting in the gallery to watch is a constitutional right; recording, photographing, or livestreaming the proceedings is another matter entirely and requires the express permission of the Court. In fact, it is generally prohibited and with strict enforcement.
An Invitation to Learn
For law students and young lawyers, observing advocacy in practice is invaluable. Reading about cross-examination in textbooks is one thing. Watching a lawyer question a witness, test evidence, and respond under pressure is another.
Yet the value of open justice extends far beyond the legal profession. Public access helps demystify the courts for ordinary citizens, challenging the belief that courtrooms are places to be avoided.
Lawyer Akuffo’s announcement provides a timely reminder of a principle already built into Ghana’s legal framework. Anyone intending to attend simply needs to verify that the hearing is open to the public and comply fully with courtroom decorum.
The conclusion is simple. You do not need to wait until a legal problem arises before taking an interest in the courts. Ghana’s Constitution and procedural rules ensure that justice is administered where the public can see it, giving every citizen a legitimate right to observe.
