By Sylvester Udemezue
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
In recent years, some voices in Ghana and Nigeria have argued that Ghana and Nigeria should abolish the centralized law school system. They propose that universities should run their own professional/vocational law training programmes, after which graduates would sit for a central examination to be called the National Bar Examination. This, they say, is how it works in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, where there is no single national law school. Such a proposal may at first appear progressive, but closer scrutiny reveals it to be incomplete, one-sided, and potentially damaging to legal education, the legal profession, and the administration of justice in the affected countries, each of which is still a developing country.
1. AN INAPT COMPARISON: First, and with due respect, the comparison to developed nations is superficial because it ignores critical socio-economic, institutional, and infrastructural realities in Ghana and Nigeria. It is true that countries like the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the USA operate without a centralised national law school. However, these countries have conditions vastly different from the situations in each of Ghana and Nigeria:
(a). Judicial Efficiency and Effectiveness in Justice Delivery: In many developed jurisdictions, most civil cases filed in early 2025 will be concluded (up to the highest appellate court) before the year ends. In Ghana and Nigeria, many cases filed 5–15 years ago are still pending in courts.
(b). Digitalised Courts: E-filing, e-service, digital case management, and virtual hearings are routine in those countries. Many Ghanaian and Nigerian courts still record proceedings in longhand and store files manually, while e-filing, e-service, and virtual hearings remain a mirage.
(c). Infrastructure: Courts in the UK, USA, or Australia operate with uninterrupted public power supply, modern facilities, and well-furnished courtrooms. In Ghana and Nigeria, unstable electricity, dilapidated generators, poor ventilation, and outdated furniture are the norm.
(d). Industrial Peace: Strikes by the judiciary and especially university staff are virtually unheard of in Canada or New Zealand. In Ghana and Nigeria, courts often shut down over salaries, funding, or autonomy disputes.
(e). Transparency and Accountability: Recruitment of judicial officers in the USA, UK, Canada, and Australia is generally and comparatively transparent and merit-based; delivery of judgments and rulings is timely. In Ghana and Nigeria, corruption, opacity, and delay remain persistent challenges.
If we are to import the legal training structure of these developed countries, should we not first upgrade our judicial systems, infrastructure, governance, and regulatory culture to match theirs? Without this, transplanting their model risks magnifying our existing weaknesses.
2. UNDERSTANDING THE REAL PROBLEM: Proponents of abolition often cite limited access to the Law School in the affected countries, arguing that many LLB graduates are not able to secure admission in each given year. In my opinion, the primary cause of this bottleneck is over-admission at the undergraduate level. Many universities in Ghana and Nigeria routinely exceed their legal education regulatory admission quotas by two to five times. So why not, in our efforts to resolve the problem of overflow of law graduates, look at the real causes of the problem? Identifying the real causes would help us to develop more befitting and pragmatic solutions to the problem, instead of creating a bigger problem in an attempt to resolve a smaller one, which the proposal to abolish the centralised law school system may turn out to be in the end. In each of Ghana and Nigeria, the national Law School maintains stricter intake standards to preserve quality. Decentralising professional training to these same universities, without fixing the bigger problem of quota abuse by universities, would amount to rewarding impunity. It would also encourage even greater over-admission, producing more graduates than the profession can absorb and undermining quality and ethics.
3. RISKS INHERENT IN ABOLITION: Abolishing the centralised law school system would have serious consequences, including but not limited to the following:
(a). Weakened Regulatory Control: In Nigeria, for example, the Council of Legal Education (CLE) would be reduced to an examining body, akin to WAEC, NECO, or JAMB, with little influence over the quality of training or ethics.
(b). Fragmentation of Standards: Universities would inevitably vary in curricula, assessment rigour, and teaching quality, creating disparities in competence.
(c). Loss of Uniform Ethical Training: The centralised system ensures all lawyers are trained in ethics and professional conduct under the same standards.
(d). Exposure to University Instability: Strikes, underfunding, and politics that plague undergraduate programmes in the universities, especially in developing countries, could infect vocational training.
(e). Erosion of the “Levelling” Effect: Today, graduates from all universities (elite or modest) train and compete on a common platform. This drives universities to prepare students to meet a national standard. Abolition would remove this incentive.
4. WHY THE GOWER MODEL OF LEGAL EDUCATION WAS ADOPTED AND WHY IT STILL WORKS: Nigeria’s centralised model originates from the 1959 Unsworth Committee’s recommendation to adopt the Gower Model, which comprises a bifurcated legal education system with the academic stage in universities and the professional/vocational (adjectival) training in a centralised national law school. The aim was to guarantee uniform standards of training, instil ethics, courtroom procedure, and values in a controlled environment, and preserve the integrity of the legal profession in a developing jurisdiction. As legal scholars Emeka Ngige, SAN, and Sylvester Udemezue have observed, the Nigerian Law School’s efforts to improve standards, inculcate skills, and maintain ethics have been a “saving grace for legal education in Nigeria.”
5. WHY CENTRALISATION FITS DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: A centralised law school system is not just administratively convenient; it is strategically essential in contexts like Ghana and Nigeria, which are developing countries. Its key advantages include:
(a). Uniform Standards and National Cohesion: One regulatory body ensures consistent curriculum, ethics, and skills training, fostering unity in a multi-ethnic profession.
(b). Effective Quality Control: Easier oversight compared to regulating dozens of independent university-run programmes.
(c). Cost-Effectiveness: Scarce resources (libraries, moot courts, hostels, experienced lecturers) are pooled in a few national campuses rather than duplicated inefficiently.
(d). Promotes a National Legal Culture: Curricula can be tailored to local laws, customs, and national needs.
(e). Easier and Rapid Reform Implementation: Policy changes and innovations can be rolled out uniformly across all campuses.
(f). Credibility and Recognition: A known, consistent training standard enhances public trust and international reciprocity.
(g). Nation-Building: Students from diverse backgrounds learn together, promoting integration and mutual understanding.
(h). Stability: Law Schools are far less prone to strikes and disruptions than universities.
6. ADDRESSING CAPACITY WITHOUT ABOLITION: Rather than dismantle a system that works, even if not yet perfectly, each of Ghana and Nigeria should work towards:
(a). Expanding existing national Law School facilities and campuses (Nigerian Law School now has seven campuses under one administrative body; it could establish more campuses);
(b). Stricter enforcement of undergraduate admission quotas;
investing more in infrastructure and technology for vocational training;
(c). Introducing staggered or flexible intakes to reduce post-graduation waiting periods. In Nigeria, backlog programmes have been introduced by which the Law School conducts two academic sessions in a year, although this does not run every year. Efforts could be made to make such backlog programmes more regular and continuous to clear the backlog of law graduates waiting to be admitted into the Law School. Such backlog programmes must, however, be implemented side-by-side with stricter measures to discourage over-admission and violation of admission quotas by the various law faculties. A more comprehensive approach to tackling the challenges of over-admission and Law School capacity crisis is recommended in the next paragraph.
7. PRAGMATIC MEASURES TO RESOLVING OVER-ADMISSION AND LAW SCHOOL CAPACITY CRISIS: As already suggested, the recurring overflow of law graduates in Nigeria, Ghana, and other developing countries is not caused by the centralised law school system but by persistent over-admission and quota violations at university level. The legal education regulatory authorities in Nigeria and Ghana must address these root causes while modernising capacity management at their respective national Law Schools. Abolishing the national law school is not a wise solution to the problem; as earlier hinted, it is unwise to create a bigger problem while attempting to solve a smaller one. The following more pragmatic measures are recommended:
(a). Stricter Enforcement of Admission Quota Requirements and Conditions: Legal education regulators should strictly monitor intakes and apply sanctions to any law faculty that exceeds its approved quota. Sanctions may include suspension of accreditation, withholding of graduation clearance for excess students, and public disclosure of offenders. Nigeria has already started towards this direction. In 2024, the Council of Legal Education (CLE) (which is the apex regulator of legal education in Nigeria) suspended admissions into the Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) programme at eight Nigerian universities. This action was taken due to violations of regulatory guidelines, specifically related to accreditation and admission quotas, according to JAMB. The affected universities include Arthur Jarvis University; Alex Ekwueme Federal University; the Nigerian Police Academy, Wudil, Kano State; Fountain University, Osogbo, Osun State; Redeemer’s University, Ede, Osun State; Taraba State University, Jalingo; Western Delta University, Oghara, Delta State; Kwara State University, Malete; and Bingham University, Karu, Nasarawa State. The action by the Council of Legal Education was immediately followed by suspension of admission into the affected universities by the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), the agency that conducts entrance examinations into Nigerian universities.
(b). Link Accreditation to Compliance: Accreditation and re-accreditation exercises should place heavy emphasis on compliance with admission quotas. Chronic offenders should face reduced quotas or temporary programme closure (such as the type recently imposed in Nigeria) until compliance is assured.
(c). Expand Law School Capacity Strategically: Increase the number of Law School campuses and modernise existing ones to absorb higher numbers only when university quotas are respected.
(d). Staggered Admission & Modular Training: Introduce multiple Law School entry cycles annually and modularise the curriculum to allow phased enrolment without lowering standards.
(e). Regional Training Options: Establish regional vocational training centres under central Law School supervision to relieve congestion at main campuses. As pointed out above, Nigerian Law School already has seven campuses; there are still opportunities for more.
(f). Added Recommendations by Ngige and Udemezue in their article, “Navigating the Future of Legal Education in Contemporary Nigeria: Effective Strategies for Addressing Current Challenges and Proposals for Reforms”: (i) Make quota compliance a statutory requirement, enforceable through enabling regulations; (ii) Mandate periodic submission of verifiable admission lists to the CLE for vetting before matriculation; (iii) Deploy independent monitors to audit university admissions against approved quotas; (iv). Establish a centralised, CLE-controlled admission portal for law faculties to prevent over-enrolment at the point of entry. By combining strict quota enforcement with strategic expansion and transparent admissions monitoring, as Ngige and Udemezue propose, Ghana and Nigeria can protect the quality of legal education while ensuring that all qualified graduates eventually gain access to professional training. As pointed out in an article titled “Arguments Against Centralised Law School for Nigeria Are Diversionary, Mere Distractions, and Non-Sequitur,” by Sylvester Udemezue, the existence of a centralised law school is not the cause of our legal education problems. Instead, it has often been the safeguard against further decline. The focus should be on strengthening the centralised model, not discarding it.
8. ADDITIONAL REASONS WHY UNIVERSITY SYSTEM IN NIGERIA AND GHANA IS NOT YET FIT FOR ADJECTIVAL LEGAL EDUCATION: Adjectival legal education (professional/vocational training that prepares law graduates for actual legal practice) requires a high degree of quality control, uniformity, ethical discipline, and practical exposure. The current university systems in Nigeria and Ghana are structurally and operationally ill-equipped to deliver this stage of training without compromising standards:
(a). Persistent OverAdmission and Quota Violations: Many universities in both countries routinely exceed the admission quotas approved by the Council of Legal Education (CLE) or equivalent regulatory bodies. This chronic breach creates unmanageable class sizes, strains resources, and leads to inconsistent training quality. Moving adjectival training into such an environment would reward impunity and magnify the problem.
(b). Weak Regulatory Enforcement: While the CLE maintains strong oversight over a centralised law school, its ability to enforce uniform standards across multiple autonomous universities would be limited. Current university regulatory bodies have not demonstrated sustained success in curbing admission abuses or maintaining consistent standards.
(c). Infrastructural Deficits: Adjectival training requires modern moot courts, ICTenabled classrooms, specialised libraries, and access to courts for clinical legal education. Many universities lack these facilities or have them in inadequate, poorly maintained conditions.
(d). Industrial Instability: Frequent strikes by lecturers and nonacademic staff in Nigerian and Ghanaian universities disrupt academic calendars and delay graduation. The Nigerian Law School, by contrast, has minimal history of industrial action, providing a stable training environment.
(e). Variable Quality of Academic Programmes: The standard of academic law programmes varies widely among universities. Without a common professional training ground, disparities in competence would widen, undermining public trust in the profession.
(f). Vulnerability to University Politics and Corruption: Admission processes, grading, and programme management in some universities are affected by political interference, nepotism, or corruption. Centralised professional training under an independent CLEcontrolled institution provides a buffer against these risks.
(g). Lack of Uniform Ethical and Professional Values Training: Professional ethics, discipline, and courtroom conduct are core to adjectival training. In a decentralised university-run system, there is no guarantee these values would be uniformly and consistently taught or enforced.
(h). Absence of a National Integrative Platform: One of the strengths of a centralised law school is that it brings together graduates from diverse backgrounds, fostering a shared professional identity and national cohesion. Universities operating in isolation cannot replicate this integrative effect.
9. CONCLUSION & MORE RECOMMENDATIONS: Reform, Don’t Abolish: Until the university systems in Nigeria and Ghana resolve the issues of quota violations, infrastructure gaps, regulatory weakness, industrial instability, and variable academic quality, they remain unfit to handle adjectival legal education. The centralised law school system, under strong regulatory oversight, continues to provide the most reliable platform for producing competent, ethical, and practice-ready lawyers in these jurisdictions. In the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the US, decentralised legal training works because of strong institutions, efficient justice systems, transparent governance, and adequate funding. Ghana and Nigeria lack these foundational conditions. The centralised law school system here is not an outdated relic; it is a necessary guardrail. Abolishing it now would risk plunging the legal profession into fragmentation, lower standards, and eroded ethics. Until we address the structural weaknesses that make decentralisation dangerous, the wise course is to retain, reform, and strengthen the centralised system; protecting the quality, credibility, and unity of our legal profession for generations to come.
10. POST SCRIPTUM: SOME FURTHER PERSPECTIVES ON LEGAL EDUCATION BY THIS WRITER:
i). Sylvester C Udemezue, ‘Arguments Against Centralised Law School for Nigeria Are Diversionary, Mere Distractions and Non-Sequitur’ (DNL Legal & Style, 30 October 2022) accessed 6 August 2025.
ii). Sylvester C Udemezue, ‘Career Opportunities for Lawyers and Place of Skills, Ethics and Values in Successful Law Practice’ (DNL Legal & Style, 17 February 2021) accessed 6 August 2025.
iii). Sylvester C Udemezue, ‘Debunking the Concern of Nonchalance: Answers to Common Questions about Nigerian Law School Programs’ (DNL Legal & Style, 12 July 2023) accessed 6 August 2025.
iv). Sylvester C Udemezue, ‘Education at the Nigerian Law School: An Insider’s Account’ (Udemsyl WordPress Blog, 29 January 2017) accessed 6 August 2025.
v). Sylvester C Udemezue, ‘Eleven Awesome Signs That the God of Governor Wike Who Helped a Woman in Labour Dey Sweet the Nigerian Legal Profession Pass Everyone Else’ (Triplenet LawParliament, 6 February 2023) accessed 6 August 2025.
vi). Sylvester C Udemezue and Emeka Ngige, SAN, ‘Navigating the Future of Legal Education in Contemporary Nigeria: Effective Strategies for Addressing Current Challenges and Proposals for Reforms’ (SSRN, 1 December 2024) accessed 6 August 2025.
vii). Sylvester C Udemezue, ‘Nigerian Law School Programme Is Not Self-Taught but Teacher-Taught, Teacher-Driven—In Line With Contemporary Benchmarks and International Best Practices’ (TheNigeriaLawyer, 14 June 2023) accessed 6 August 2025.
viii). Sylvester C Udemezue, ‘Nigerian Law School’s Upgraded Yenagoa and Brand-New Port Harcourt Campuses: A Trending Transfiguration from a Quintessential Quartet’ (Courtroom Mail, 28 July 2025) accessed 6 August 2025.
ix). Sylvester C Udemezue and Emeka Ngige, SAN, ‘Pedagogical Renaissance: A Disquisition On the Changing Face of Legal Education in Contemporary Nigeria’ (SSRN, 1 December 2024) accessed 6 August 2025.
x). Sylvester C Udemezue, ‘Procedural Fairness in Legislative Oversight: Key Takeaways from House of Reps Order to the Nigerian Law School over Delayed Bar Results’ (The Loyal Nigerian Lawyer, 11 April 2025) accessed 6 August 2025.
xi). Sylvester C Udemezue, ‘Why the 2021 LPPC Shortlist of 130 Lawyers for the Rank of SAN Is Unique for the Nigerian Law School’ (DNL Legal & Style, 9 September 2021) accessed 6 August 2025.
Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems)
Proctor, The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law and Justice (TRM).
Tel: 08021365545.
Email: mails@therealityministry.ngo, udems@therealityministry.ngo.
Web: www.therealityministry.ngo.
(06 August 2025)
Reimagine your practice with the power of AI “...this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic.” — Ohio Books Ltd
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe, Esq., ACIArb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director, Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
Bonus:
Get a FREE eBook titled “How to Use the AI in Legalpedia and Law Pavilion” with every purchase.
How to Order: 📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878 📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com 🌐 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access directly online at: https://selar.com/prv626
______________________________________________________________________ "You Don't Need To Be Rich, You Just Need To Start" — Victoria Ezeigwe, Esq Launches Investment Handbook For Nigerians Starting With ₦5,000
Get your copy today and take the first step toward financial growth:
_______________________________________________________________________ [A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
_______________________________________________________________________
