Why the General Legal Council Must Sanction Lawyers Over the Daddy Lumba Estate Letter
Ghana’s legal profession runs on trust. Clients trust lawyers to act with authority. Courts trust lawyers to speak only for those they represent. And the public trusts lawyers to uphold the law, not manipulate it.
The recent letter from Baba Jamal’s law firm concerning Daddy Lumba’s estate tests all three. If the General Legal Council is serious about protecting the integrity of the bar, this is a clear case for disciplinary action. Here’s why.
1. The First Rule: No Client, No Case
The Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 2020, LI 2423, opens with a simple command: a lawyer shall not act without instructions from a client. The firm’s letter states it acted on “instructions from their client.”
But who was that client? Daddy Lumba was deceased. A dead man cannot retain counsel. His estate can — but only through a court-appointed executor or administrator. As of the letter’s date, no such appointment had been publicized.
If the firm cannot produce a living client with legal standing who instructed them before that letter went out, then they acted without authority. Under Rule 1, that alone is professional misconduct. The General Legal Council has suspended lawyers for less.
2. Misleading the Public with a Phantom Family
The letter claims to represent the “Fosu Royal Family from Paakoso.” That entity does not exist in Asante custom or law. Nsuta-Fosu is Daddy Lumba’s father’s name. His father was from Mangoase. And Asante inheritance is matrilineal — royal and family identity passes through the mother’s line, not the father’s.
Rule 13 of LI 2423 prohibits lawyers from making false or misleading statements. Presenting a culturally incoherent, legally non-existent “royal family” as your client misleads the public and prejudices the estate. It creates fictitious standing to intervene in a probate matter. The GLC cannot allow lawyers to manufacture clients to enter disputes.
3. Impersonating the Dead
Though the firm said it represented the family, the letter read like a personal defense of Daddy Lumba — his choices, his marriage, his intent. Rule 18 bars lawyers from asserting personal knowledge or becoming a witness for their own case.
A lawyer cannot argue for a dead man. Only his duly appointed estate representative can. By adopting Daddy Lumba’s voice, the firm crossed from advocacy into impersonation. That breaches the lawyer’s role as an officer of the court and undermines Rule 2, which demands lawyers uphold the dignity of the profession.
4. Litigating in the Press, Not in Court
If the firm had genuine instructions about the estate, Rule 3 required them to file those with the Probate Division immediately. Instead, the claims appeared in a public letter before any court process.
Rule 5 says lawyers must not use the media to influence or prejudice proceedings. Using press releases to try an estate case before filing is textbook professional grandstanding. The GLC has warned repeatedly that the courtroom, not the newsroom, is the proper forum. Failure to sanction here sets a precedent: any lawyer can try their probate case on radio first.
5. Raising Claims Without Standing
The letter invoked “desertion” to attack Maame Akosua Serwaah Fosu’s status. But only a spouse can plead desertion under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367), and it’s a ground for divorce, not inheritance. PNDCL 111 governs intestate succession, and it does not disqualify a spouse for desertion.
Rule 5 also bars frivolous claims. A third-party law firm has no standing to litigate another couple’s marriage. Raising it publicly was legally irrelevant and calculated to prejudice. That’s an abuse of the legal process the GLC is mandated to prevent.
Why Sanctions Matter
The General Legal Council exists to protect the public and the profession. Section 18 of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) gives it power to discipline lawyers whose conduct brings the profession into disrepute.
If lawyers can write public letters for dead men, invent royal families, and argue marriage law in probate disputes without consequence, then the line between lawyer and litigant disappears. Public confidence collapses. Every future celebrity estate becomes a media circus, not a legal process.
Precedent exists. The GLC has sanctioned lawyers for misleading statements, acting without authority, and bringing the profession into disrepute. The facts here are no different — only the names are famous.
The Remedy
The Council should, at minimum:
1. Investigate whether the firm had a living, instructing client with standing when the letter was issued.
2. Demand the “instructions” they referenced and proof of filing with the Probate Division.
3. Determine if the “Fosu Royal Family” claim constitutes a false or misleading statement under Rule 13.
4. Sanction appropriately if capacity is not proven — from a reprimand to suspension, per Act 32.
This isn’t about Daddy Lumba’s music or Maame Serwaa’s marriage. It’s about whether Ghana’s lawyers are bound by the same rules as everyone else.
The Principle at Stake
Dead men don’t have lawyers. Estates do. Families do. But only when the law says so, and only when the lawyer can prove it.
The General Legal Council must draw that line clearly. Because if anyone with letterhead can claim to speak for the dead, then the living have no protection at all.