Ghana's Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Justice Srem-Sai, has strongly rejected claims of selective justice. These allegations arose from the Chief Justice's decision to direct specific courts to continue sitting during the ongoing legal vacation. Justice Srem-Sai described these accusations as "completely false," asserting that numerous judges across the country are currently conducting cases as designated vacation judges.
The Deputy Attorney-General's comments come amid a growing dispute between the judiciary and the Ghana Bar Association (GBA). This disagreement centers on the conduct of court proceedings during the legal vacation, which runs from August 1 to September 30. Justice Srem-Sai maintained that lawyers facing legitimate difficulties appearing during this period have proper recourse. He stated that counsel should appear before the court, explain their circumstances, and formally request an adjournment.
This situation fits into a broader context of Ghana's legal system striving for efficiency and timely justice delivery. The judiciary aims to reduce case backlogs, which have historically burdened the court system. Ensuring continuous court operations, even during traditional vacation periods, is a strategy to achieve this goal. This move highlights the tension between established legal traditions and modern demands for faster judicial processes.
Justice Srem-Sai attributed the controversy to lawyers attempting to delay cases. He accused them of using repeated objections and requests for adjournments as tactics. He pointed to a recurring pattern in some cases affected by the directive, where securing dates for proceedings often involves numerous excuses. He stated, "It is just an attempt to, as usual, delay cases."
The implications of this dispute are significant for the administration of justice in Ghana. The Chief Justice's warrant remains in force, meaning designated courts are expected to continue their work. Lawyers who deliberately fail to appear risk leaving their clients without legal representation. In some affected cases, judges have directed that clients may need to conduct aspects of their cases themselves, including cross-examination, if their counsel is absent. This could impact the fairness and efficiency of trials, particularly in high-profile criminal cases.
The GBA's position is that Vacation Courts have traditionally handled only urgent and interlocutory matters, not full trials. They argue that the availability of counsel has always been a key consideration for substantive proceedings during the legal break. Justice Srem-Sai, however, rejected this interpretation. He insisted that the authority to determine when courts sit rests solely with the judiciary, not the legal profession. This fundamental disagreement underscores the ongoing struggle to balance judicial autonomy with the practices and concerns of legal practitioners.
The dispute has intensified following the Chief Justice’s warrant, which specifically directs selected courts and judges to continue hearing certain cases. The Attorney-General’s Office firmly maintains that these designated judges possess the full authority to conduct proceedings during this period. This ensures that critical legal matters, including several high-profile criminal cases, can progress without unnecessary interruptions. The outcome of this standoff will likely set a precedent for future legal vacation periods and judicial operations in Ghana.