By Ashiadey Dotse
Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Justice Srem-Sai, has rejected claims of selective justice over the Chief Justice’s decision to allow some courts to sit during the legal vacation.
Justice Srem-Sai described the allegations as “completely false”, saying several judges across the country have been designated as vacation judges and are currently hearing cases.
He said some other cases are also continuing because the judges handling them have not been assigned to the legal vacation.
“It is completely false. There are so many judges that are doing vacation court,” he said.
Justice Srem-Sai’s comments come amid growing disagreements between the Judiciary and the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) over court proceedings during the legal vacation, which runs from August 1 to September 30.
He explained that lawyers who have genuine difficulties attending court during the vacation can formally ask for an adjournment.
“If a lawyer has a challenge which will prevent him from conducting a case on any day, what you do is to come to court and tell the court your reason, and the court will understand and grant you adjournment,” he said.
However, he rejected calls for lawyers to stop attending court simply because the legal vacation is ongoing.
He said lawyers could choose not to practise during the period, but such a decision would not automatically stop court proceedings.
“But to sit at home and in your office and declare that because of legal vacation you have decided that you won’t practise law — of course you will decide that you won’t practise law — but clearly that does not stop the court proceedings from going,” he added.
Justice Srem-Sai also dismissed the controversy surrounding the Chief Justice’s directive, accusing some lawyers of using repeated objections and requests for adjournments to delay cases.
“As far as we are concerned, there is no controversy on this matter. It is just an attempt to, as usual, delay cases,” he said.
He further pointed to what he described as a recurring pattern in some of the cases affected by the directive, insisting that the decision to have selected courts sit during the legal vacation should not be seen as selective justice.
