By: Franklin ASARE-DONKOH
The recent clash over courts sittings during legal vacation, especially in the Wontumi case has exposed what is termed political lawyering and the glaring double standards it exhibits.
In Ghana, the annual judicial or legal vacation for superior courts (Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, and High Court) spans two months, running from August 1 to September 30 each year. During this recess, the Chief Justice is mandated to designate specific “vacation courts” to operate. The selected High Courts are to handle urgent and essential matters.
High-profile attorney and former Abuakwa South constituency lawmaker, Mr. Samuel Atta Akyea, finds himself at the center of intense public scrutiny after aggressively challenging a directive by the Chief Justice, His Lordship, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie.
Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie’s directive required specific specialised courts to continue sitting through the traditional August recess to handle urgent criminal trials.
While Atta Akyea and co. have petitioned the Chief Justice to halt these proceedings, claiming they create an impression of “selective justice” and “witch-hunting”, critics of Atta Akyea argue that he is being hypocritical because his stance shifts depending on whose interest the court serves.
The Protest and the Politics.
In a strongly worded letter from his firm, Zoe, Akyea & Co., Mr. Atta Akyea fiercely protested a warrant authorizing Justice Francis Apangabuno Achibonga to proceed with the high-profile trial of former National Signals Bureau chief, Mr. Kwabena Adu-Boahene during the recess.
Partnering in protest with him is the former Attorney General, Mr. Godfred Yeboah Dame, who represents Hanan Abdul-Wahab, former National Food and Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO) Chief Executive Officer, in a separate vacation trial.
Mr. Atta Akyea, in his many claims, argued that forcing defense teams to work while other lawyers rest is “most irregular” and unconstitutional. He went as far as threatening to boycott the scheduled August sittings entirely.
Meanwhile, Atta Akyea’s critics say “this same Atta Akyea has formally applied to a High Court in Accra, during the legal vacation, for the court to consider bail for his client, Mr. Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, pending the determination of his appeal against his conviction and custodial sentence.”
The application was filed by Samuel Atta Akyea, counsel for the 1st and 3rd appellants, on August 5, 2026, and served on the Office of the Attorney-General as well as the Director of Prisons at the Nsawam Medium Security Prisons, in the case titled The Republic v. Bernard Antwi Boasiako @ Wontumi, Kwame Antwi (at large), and Akonta Mining Company Limited, under Suit No. CR/0004/2026
A Notice of Motion filed at the Criminal Division ‘4’ of the High Court indicates that the application was brought pursuant to Section 96(1) of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30) and Section 33(1) of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459).
The motion is scheduled to be moved before the High Court on Wednesday, August 19, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel for the appellants may be heard.
This is what critics point to as the Double Standards of Samuel Atta Akyea on Legal Vacations? His latest legal manoeuvre highlights a glaring contradiction in what they call political lawyering. The dramatic language used to condemn sittings during vacation as a political tool raises uncomfortable questions about opportunism when in one breathe he takes advantage of the opportunity because it suits him, but in another breathe, he condemns it when it does not favour him.
Legal observers point out that the mechanism of utilizing vacation courts is a recognized administrative tool designed to expedite pressing issues of public interest, rather than a tool to tilt the scale .
When political actors willingly file for and utilize vacation sittings to advance their private client agendas, it is hailed as a necessary pursuit of justice. Yet, the moment the state or the judiciary utilizes the exact same tool to prosecute state-level corruption and ensure institutional accountability, the narrative pivots to political persecution.
The selective outrage does more than just shield high-profile defendants; it actively undermines public confidence in the judicial branch.
For many observers, for Mr. Atta Akyea to go publicly and declare that the Chief Justice’s administrative directives create “two systems of criminal justice delivery” risks reducing legitimate legal processes to a mere partisan theatre. Ultimately, justice cannot be a matter of convenience.
If Ghana’s democracy is to mature, its independent state institutions must be allowed to function uniformly, without fear, favour, or recess.
