The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) has formally protested the issuance of warrants compelling specific High Court judges to continue part-heard criminal trials during the ongoing legal vacation, arguing the move breaches long-standing court rules and professional convention.
In a letter to the Judiciary signed by National President Efua Ghartey, the GBA said three law firms — Zoe, Akyea & Co, Dame & Partners, and Sam Okudzeto & Associates — had reported being served with notices arising from warrants directing named judges to proceed with their cases despite the vacation period.
The Chronicle has not independently verified the content of the underlying warrants or petitions, which are described here as characterised by the GBA.
The legal basis of the dispute
The GBA’s objection rests on Order 79, Rule 4 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), which it says establishes three annual vacations for the High Court. Under Rule 4(b), the association said, the second and longest of these runs from 1 August to 30 September, following what it described as the busiest term of the legal year.
By convention, the GBA said, the Judiciary and other stakeholders have agreed that designated Vacation Courts — both in-person and virtual — may handle emergency and interlocutory matters during this period, but not trials.
Counsel’s right to decline
Central to the GBA’s argument is a claimed practice under which lawyers cannot be compelled to appear before a Vacation Court.
The association said that where counsel on either or both sides indicate unavailability, a listed case cannot proceed, and a judge should do no more than adjourn to a date proposed by counsel. It further argued that self-represented litigants should not be pressed to proceed in a lawyer’s absence during vacation, saying such absence should not be treated as wilful.
The Chronicle notes these are the GBA’s characterisations of practice and convention rather than provisions it has cited as appearing verbatim in C.I. 47; the letter does not quote specific rule text establishing counsel’s right of refusal.
Context cited by the association
The GBA linked its objection to the introduction of afternoon court sittings this term and said many lawyers had pre-arranged commitments — including submissions prepared for delivery after the vacation, travel to other jurisdictions, and prior conference engagements — with some firms closed entirely for the period.
It framed adherence to the vacation calendar as a matter of lawyers’ work-life balance and professional wellbeing, for which it said practitioners bear personal responsibility.
The letter opens by referencing the Judiciary’s recent commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the Supreme Court Ordinance of 1876, which the GBA said took place between 16 April and 31 July 2026.
What the GBA is seeking
The association said it expected the Judiciary to honour the vacation rules and asked that the two petitions referenced in its letter — understood to relate to the affected firms’ cases — be “considered favourably,” without specifying the relief sought beyond adjournment of the recalled matters.
For more news, join The Chronicle Newspaper channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBSs55E50UqNPvSOm2z
