Historically, in terms of legal education in the Western World, in the common law tradition, the legal profession itself was in charge of educating new professional cohorts. In contrast, the education of legal professionals in the civil law tradition was the responsibility of the universities, and within those, of the professors.
However, in our country Liberia (a common law country) today, the emergence of individuals claiming to have established a new “Liberia School of Law,” amid fake medical doctors who are absorbed and sheltered in the medical profession by the Vice President Jeremiah K. Koung, and presidential stooges at the Commerce Ministry (eg.Inspector General Dorr Cooper bribing staff at the University of Liberia and he Door Cooper receiving Degree he did not achieve) coupled with the concurrent establishment of a “Law Center,” presents a troubling challenge to the legal education framework, public trust, and the integrity of national legal institutions.
This paper critiques such conduct through the lens of legal positivism, social legitimacy, and rule-of-law theory, drawing upon the foundational jurisprudence of H.L.A. Hart, Hans Kelsen, and other contemporary legal scholars. It argues that unauthorized or misleading claims to institutional authority in legal education undermine not only academic integrity but also the broader rule of law and societal stability.
1. Introduction The legitimacy of legal education is foundational to the professional development of competent legal practitioners and the upholding of the rule of law. Liberia, having only one officially recognized law school—the Louis Arthur Grimes School of Law at the University of Liberia—faces a potential threat from private actors purporting to establish alternative institutions without formal accreditation. This paper interrogates the legitimacy and potential consequences of such claims.
- Legal Positivism and the Question of Institutional Validity Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law emphasizes that legal norms derive their validity from a foundational “Grundnorm” or basic norm. In the context of legal education, the authority to establish a law school must be traceable to a higher legal norm—such as a constitutional or statutory provision, or a mandate by an authorized agency like a Ministry of Education or legal regulatory council. Any institution not grounded in such a norm lacks normative validity.
H.L.A. Hart adds further clarity with his distinction between primary and secondary rules. The secondary rules—rules of recognition, change, and adjudication—govern the creation and legitimacy of institutions. A law school that is not recognized under a society’s rule of recognition is, by Hart’s theory, not a valid legal institution.
- The Ethics of Misrepresentation and Social Legitimacy Beyond formal positivism, the question of legitimacy also intersects with social contract theory and professional ethics. A law center that implicitly or explicitly positions itself as a de facto law school without transparency violates the social trust placed in legal institutions. This amounts to a form of moral fraud, undermining the ethical obligations of legal educators to inform, not deceive.
- Consequences for Legal Education and the Rule of Law The potential fallout of unauthorized law schools is extensive:
- Students may be misled into pursuing unaccredited degrees, thereby nullifying their bar eligibility.
- The legal profession could be infiltrated by inadequately trained practitioners.
- Public confidence in legal institutions may erode, creating a legitimacy crisis.
This undermines Lon Fuller’s conception of the “internal morality of law,” particularly the principles of clarity, consistency, and congruence between rules and enforcement.
- Regulatory and Institutional Safeguards To protect against such threats, Liberia’s legal and educational authorities must:
- Rigorously enforce accreditation requirements;
- Establish clear public registries of approved legal institutions;
- Pursue legal action against individuals or groups engaging in fraudulent representation of institutional authority.
Conclusion The unregulated employment of doctors in hospitals and the medical associations, and the establishment of institutions purporting to be law schools or law centers with or without state sanction, especially by people like Kwame Clement who
- very recently did not know about the jurisprudential rule in constitutional litigation that when the general rule conflicts with the specific rule the the specific overrides the general, or he simply pretended not to know because he chose to be an accomplice in Joseph Boakai violating the Constitution and the laws or tenure independent regulatory agencies, or
- Former Chief Justice Francis Korkpor blatantly lying that there were no political prisoners in Liberia following the April 14, 1979 riots, or
- Philip Banks blatantly, as Justice in Chambers, dismissing a case against a foreigner (Jerome
Korkoyah a U.S. citizen) who was appointed as Chair of the NEC by former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, because he Banks wanted to please Madam Sirleaf, his then benefactor, are national irregularities and jurisprudential threats which must be exposed, blamed,named, and shamed at all times, whether the culprits are
A. Usurpers of Authority … individuals claiming legal or institutional power they are not entitled to under law or regulatory norms, Quasi-Legal Actors …actors operating in a legal gray zone, mimicking legal forms (e.g., schools, boards, degrees) without legal substance or formal legitimacy, or simply
B.Bad-Faith Institutional Entrepreneurs who are self-interested actors who attempt to build pseudo-institutions not to serve society but to bolster their social capital or résumé.Impostors in Legal Authority (or Pseudo-Jurists) arrogating upon themselves titles like Medical Doctor, “Professor,” “Dean,” or “President” , legal institutions without meeting established legal or academic criteria. Or whether they are
C. credential entrepreneurs, symbolic power hoarders, elites without merit or False Elites
, reputation launderers, delusional self-aggrandizers, academic impostors, or
Grifters in Academia, as proven with Peter Matthew George and his benefactor Jeremiah
Kpan Koung, or as it appears with this overnight school of law …law center SEEMING DEDEBA
Accordingly, using the frameworks of Kelsen, Hart, and Fuller, this paper has shown that legal legitimacy is both normatively and ethically grounded. Any deviation from these standards compromises the legal profession and the rule of law itself.
Context-Specifically, and given the avoidable loss of lives, this contribution is purposed on alerting the public on fraudulent misrepresentation unauthorized use of academic titles, false pretenses, academic fraud, and impersonation of legal authority whether it is within hospitals or within academia.
That articulated, let us make it ventilatively, resoundingly, and radiantly clear that this critique is not in any way personal, etc.. Rather the concern derivates from the truism that it should be remembered that THE VOICING OF OPPOSITION TO AN IDEA is a reflex action of any intellectual. That is, it is the very nature of academic life to take exception, to raise questions, to examine further, to explore more deeply.
For such are the very stock-in-trade of the intellectual in the act of being an intellectual. And in indeed, there is something faintly dishonest about not doing those things, since the search for truth depends upon free criticism and tough examination of every idea.
Discussion about this post