By Franklin ASARE-DONKOH
Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, has challenged a petition by the Ghana Bar Association (GBA), arguing that lawyers cannot unilaterally refuse to appear before vacation courts.
In a detailed response titled “Legal Vacations and Trials: Why the GBA President Is in Error,” Dr Srem-Sai argued that the GBA’s position that vacation courts are strictly reserved for emergency matters, and that lawyers cannot be compelled to appear, lacks legal or procedural basis.
He countered the assertions by the GBA National President, Mrs Efua Ghartey, maintaining that the authority to control court proceedings rests with the presiding judge and not lawyers.
According to Dr Srem-Sai, the annual legal vacation represents a reduction in the workload of the judiciary rather than a complete suspension of the administration of justice.
He said where a lawyer is unable to attend court during the recess, the appropriate course is to formally apply to the presiding judge for an adjournment on a case-by-case basis.
He maintained that lawyers cannot rely on a blanket refusal or a petition by the Bar Association to avoid scheduled court sittings.
The dispute follows a directive issued by Chief Justice Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, which authorised selected courts to continue hearing cases during the August–September legal vacation, particularly high-profile, part-heard criminal cases.
Several law firms, including Zoe, Akyea & Co, Dame & Partners, and Sam Okudzeto & Associates, objected to the directive, prompting the GBA to petition the Chief Justice.
The GBA described the compulsory sittings as a departure from established judicial practice and raised concerns about the potential for “selective justice”.
While the GBA maintains that the legal vacation is a statutory provision under C.I. 47, Dr Srem-Sai argued that the break should not be interpreted as a complete halt to judicial proceedings.
He said the administration of justice must continue, particularly where delays could affect ongoing criminal proceedings and the interests of the parties involved.
The disagreement has triggered a wider debate over the balance between lawyers’ traditional legal vacation and the judiciary’s responsibility to ensure the timely administration of justice.
The exchange also highlights a rare disagreement between the leadership of the Ghana Bar Association and the Attorney-General’s Office over the scope of legal vacation and the continuation of criminal trials during the recess.
