The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) has protested the decision to compel some High Court judges to continue hearing part-heard criminal trials during the ongoing legal vacation.
The association has raised concerns over the recall of judges and the implications of the practice for lawyers who may have made prior commitments during the vacation period.
In a letter to the Judiciary, signed by GBA President Efua Ghartey, the association said three law firms had reported receiving notices arising from warrants directing certain judges to continue hearing cases despite the legal vacation.
The GBA cited Order 79, Rule 4 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), which provides for three annual court vacations. According to the association, the current legal vacation runs from August 1 to September 30.
The GBA said the established practice during the vacation is for designated vacation courts to deal primarily with urgent and interlocutory matters rather than substantive trials. It argued that the recall of judges to continue with part-heard criminal trials departs from the established arrangement and could place undue pressure on members of the legal profession.
The association further contended that lawyers should not be compelled to appear during the vacation where they have already indicated that they are unavailable. In such circumstances, the GBA said, cases should be adjourned to dates convenient to counsel.
It pointed to lawyers’ pre-existing commitments, including travel, conferences and preparations for proceedings scheduled after the vacation, as reasons why the vacation period should be respected.
The association also linked the issue to concerns about the wellbeing of lawyers, stressing the importance of work-life balance within the legal profession. The GBA has, therefore, called on the Judiciary to respect the established vacation arrangements and favourably consider petitions concerning the affected cases.
Deputy AG disagrees
The Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, has, however, rejected the GBA’s position that the availability of lawyers should determine whether substantive cases are heard during the legal vacation.
According to him, the authority to determine whether a case should proceed rests with the Judiciary, particularly the presiding judge, and not with lawyers. Dr. Srem-Sai explained that legal vacation, observed mainly during August and September, is intended to reduce the workload of the superior courts rather than bring judicial proceedings to a complete halt.
He said vacation courts could, in appropriate circumstances, hear both interlocutory and substantive matters.
The Deputy Attorney-General maintained that lawyers cannot unilaterally refuse to appear in court simply because proceedings fall within the legal vacation. He said lawyers who have genuine difficulties appearing during the period may formally apply to the court for an accommodation.
Such an application, he explained, remains subject to the discretion of the presiding judge, who may either grant or refuse it depending on the circumstances. Dr. Srem-Sai further cited court practice in England, where the concept of legal vacation originated, to support the position that control over court proceedings remains vested in judges and the courts.
He warned that allowing lawyers to determine whether cases should proceed could undermine judicial authority and potentially contribute to delays in the administration of justice.
The Deputy Attorney-General stressed that legal vacation should not be understood as a “lawyers’ vacation,” but rather as a period during which the courts reduce their workload while continuing to perform essential judicial functions.
The opposing positions have brought into focus the balance between the Judiciary’s responsibility to ensure the timely administration of justice and the legal profession’s established expectations concerning court vacations.
The disagreement is particularly significant for part-heard criminal trials, where prolonged adjournments can contribute to delays in the determination of cases, while lawyers and litigants also require reasonable certainty in scheduling proceedings.
