By: Franklin ASARE-DONKOH
The annual legal vacation, traditionally a serene two-month intermission for Ghana’s legal fraternity, has erupted into a high-stakes ideological battlefield.
At the center of this storm stands the National President of the Ghana Bar Association (GBA), Mrs Efua Ghartey, whose recent petition to Chief Justice His Lordship Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie has ignited fierce public debate.
As the Bar and the Bench lock horns over mandatory vacation court sittings, a polarizing question dominates the corridors of justice: Is Mrs. Ghartey fighting to protect the integrity of the legal profession, or is the GBA’s stance inadvertently shielding law firms publicly believed to be affiliated to politically exposed persons, thereby, doing the bidding high-profile political actors at the expense of the national interest?
Genesis of the Friction:
The controversy began when the Chief Justice issued an administrative directive authorizing selected courts to continue full trials during the August–September recess.
The directive specifically mentioned some on-going cases involving financial crimes against the state, many of which involve high-ranking political figures.
The GBA, under Mrs Ghartey’s leadership, swiftly kicked against the directive. In a formal petition to the Chief Justice, Mrs Ghartey argued that forcing lawyers to appear for full trials during the statutory rest period violates long-standing judicial traditions, undermines C.I. 47, and borders on “selective justice.”
The GBA argued that, vacation courts are reserved for emergency matters, and that, lawyers cannot be coerced into full-scale trials when they are due for rejuvenation. The petition pointed to prominent defense chambers, including Zoe, Akyea & Co, Dame & Partners, and Sam Okudzeto & Associates who had on their own, protested against being required to work during a legal vacation which they claim is not the norm.
The State Strikes Back: National Interest vs. Lawyers’ Comfort.
The Bar Association’s resistance met a fierce, public rebuttal from the State’s Chief Legal handlers. Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, challenged Ghartey’s position, publishing a detailed critique titled “Legal vacations and trials: Why the GBA President is in error.”
Dr. Srem-Sai, argued that the GBA’s position lacks sound legal or procedural foundation. In his view, the ultimate power to control court schedules and proceedings rests solely with the presiding judge, not the convenience of counsel.
From the state’s perspective, an absolute two-month shutdown of critical criminal trials leaves high-profile public interest cases in an unacceptable legal limbo.
Proponents of the Chief Justice’s directive argue that expediting these trials serves the national interest by ensuring accountability, preserving state resources, and curing the perennial public perception that the justice system moves too slowly for the powerful.
The Partisan Undercurrents
Critics of the GBA’s stance have been quick to question the timing and motivation behind the petition. To many, the GBA has only found its voice because the sittings primarily affect ongoing, high-stakes politically exposed trials. They suggest that, the Bar’s sudden demand for a rigid adherence to “tradition” serves a more parochial, partisan interest than principle, arguing that, selected courts sitting and hearing on-going cases during the legal vacation is not a novelty.
By seeking to halt these specific trials for two months, critics argue that the GBA is effectively granting an extended lifeline to accused politicians, allowing them to stall justice under the guise of vacation.
To the ordinary Ghanaian, the argument that the “wheels of justice must grind to a halt so lawyers can rest” sounds detached from the urgent national need to curb corruption and enforce swift accountability. Furthermore, public seeming impatience and frustration with the legal system often stems from what they see as endless technicalities and strategic delays used by affluent defendants.
Defending the Bar’s Integrity.
Conversely, defenders of Efua Ghartey insist that framing her petition as partisan is an unfair distortion of her mandate. As the leader of the Bar, Mrs. Ghartey’s primary responsibility is to protect the welfare of her members and uphold the statutory rules that govern legal practice.
The legal vacation under C.I. 47 is not merely a luxury; it is a structured mechanism designed to prevent systemic burnout among judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers alike.
Forcing attorneys into full-day trials during this period disrupts pre-planned chamber management, compromises the quality of defense a client receives, and is likely to set a dangerous precedent, where administrative directives can casually override statutory regulations or be used whimsically.
From this viewpoint, Mrs Ghartey is fighting a principled battle for institutional order, ensuring that the executive and the judiciary do not weaponize “urgency” to dismantle established checks, balances, and fair trial standards.
A Defining Moment for the GBA
As the back-and-forth continues over the issue, the legal vacation brouhaha has exposed a deep, philosophical split in Ghana’s governance architecture. It pits a traditionalist Bar determined to protect its professional boundaries against a reformist faction demanding that the justice system must adapt to new changes and modern public accountability demands
Whether Efua Ghartey’s actions are perceived as a shield for partisan interests or a sword for professional integrity depends entirely on which side of the courtroom one stands. Especially for those who argue that the GBA only seems to hypocritically find its voice at particular times, the actions of Mrs Efua Ghartey, no matter how principled, will be viewed with a politically tainted spectacle
One thing however remains undeniably clear: this feud has pushed the GBA into a defining national conversation regarding who the legal system truly serves, the professionals who run it, or the citizens awaiting its verdicts.
