Deputy Attorney General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai has firmly defended the government’s push for speedy trials. He stated that the governing National Democratic Congress's (NDC) position aligns directly with the constitutional requirement for timely case resolution. Srem-Sai emphasized that there is nothing wrong when a political party's interests coincide with a constitutional obligation.
Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express, Dr. Srem-Sai rejected claims that the government seeks to manipulate the legal vacation. These claims suggested the government aimed to secure favorable outcomes in cases involving former government officials. He clarified that two things can coincide, meaning the NDC's interest in speedy trials aligns with the constitutional demand for them.
This defense comes amid controversy regarding trials conducted during the legal vacation period. Concerns have been raised about whether superior courts should hold substantive trials at this time. Dr. Srem-Sai argued that the interpretation suggesting vacation judges cannot conduct trials is impractical. He explained that a judge assigned to a vacation court also handles cases in their regular court.
The Chief Justice may attach urgent matters from other courts to a vacation court. However, the assigned judge can continue hearing the merits of cases from their own court. Dr. Srem-Sai highlighted the absurdity of applying a restrictive interpretation. He noted it would mean a judge could not hear any case until January of the following year, as another judge cannot take over their ongoing cases.
He also disputed claims that trials during legal vacation are unprecedented. Dr. Srem-Sai stated that ample evidence exists, even from media reports, showing instances where superior courts conducted trials during this period. He cited the high-profile Takoradi Girls case as a clear example, which proceeded during a legal vacation despite protests from defense counsel.
Dr. Srem-Sai further rejected the argument that lawyers must agree before a trial can proceed during the vacation. He asserted that allowing lawyers to dictate how cases are conducted undermines the judiciary's essence. Lawyers often have competing interests, with one party desiring a fast resolution and the other preferring a slower pace. This dynamic necessitates judicial oversight to balance these interests and ensure justice.
He acknowledged that defense lawyers might have legitimate reasons for wanting slower proceedings. Evidence and witness memories can deteriorate over time, which is a valid concern. However, Dr. Srem-Sai insisted that the Constitution explicitly requires speedy trials. He pointed to Article 19(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees every accused person a fair and speedy trial. This constitutional provision mandates quick and efficient judicial processes.
Dr. Srem-Sai also dismissed allegations that accelerating proceedings amounts to perverting the course of justice. He challenged critics to provide evidence if they believe speed alone constitutes manipulation. He maintained that the practice of assigning vacation judges is not a new development. Evidence shows it has been standard practice for decades in Ghana for judges to sit and vacation courts to be appointed during these periods.
He challenged suggestions that only politically sensitive cases are pursued during the legal vacation. Dr. Srem-Sai noted that other cases, not involving vacation judges, are not moving because their assigned judges are on vacation. He added that if the process were truly manipulated, other cases, including SSNIT-related matters, would not be proceeding during the vacation period. This indicates a broader application of the vacation court system.