Deputy Attorney General Justice Srem-Sai has rejected the Ghana Bar Association’s (GBA) position on lawyers appearing before Vacation Courts, stating it has no legal basis. He described the GBA’s stance as “completely wrong,” arguing it is unsupported by law, fact, reason, or established court practice. This disagreement highlights a fundamental difference in interpreting judicial procedures during the legal vacation period.
The dispute arose after the GBA responded to concerns from law firms regarding directives to appear before judges during the current legal vacation. The GBA cited Order 79, Rule 4 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, CI 47, which outlines three annual legal vacations. The longest of these runs from August 1 to September 30. The GBA maintained that Vacation Courts traditionally handle emergencies and interlocutory matters, not full trials. It also argued that lawyers' willingness and availability have historically influenced whether proceedings occur during this time.
This conflict fits into a broader narrative of judicial efficiency and the administration of justice in Ghana. Delays in court proceedings are a persistent challenge, impacting economic activity and investor confidence. The efficient functioning of the legal system is crucial for upholding the rule of law and ensuring timely resolution of commercial disputes. This current disagreement could either streamline court processes or exacerbate existing backlogs, depending on its resolution.
Justice Srem-Sai stated that the Chief Justice has issued warrants authorizing over 10 judges nationwide to sit during the legal vacation and handle pending cases. He emphasized that these judges retain full authority to administer their courts and hear all types of cases. “The claim that it is the lawyers who decide whether they want to have proceedings in vacation is not founded on any fact,” he asserted. He added that lawyers globally do not dictate when a court should sit.
The Deputy Attorney General warned that accepting the GBA’s interpretation could cause significant delays in justice administration. He explained that judges assigned to Vacation Courts typically take their own leave after the legal vacation ends. If trials are postponed during the vacation, these cases might not resume until January 2027. This could create a substantial backlog, further burdening the judicial system and impacting litigants.
Justice Srem-Sai also dismissed the GBA’s assertion of an established convention limiting the nature of proceedings during legal vacation. He called this claim “completely false,” emphasizing that Order 79 of CI 47 expressly provides for legal vacation without such restrictions. He characterized the GBA’s interpretation as a “self-imposed understanding of the law” that should not dictate court administration.
Furthermore, Justice Srem-Sai cautioned that lawyers who refuse to appear before Vacation Courts could expose their clients to serious consequences. He clarified that authorized judges are entitled to proceed with cases even if counsel fails to appear. Clients whose lawyers decline to participate have been given the option to secure alternative legal representation. If a lawyer fails to appear at the next adjourned date, the court could require the client to proceed without counsel, potentially jeopardizing their case.
This situation underscores the ongoing tension between traditional legal practices and the push for greater judicial efficiency. The outcome of this dispute will likely influence future court scheduling and the expectations placed on legal practitioners during vacation periods. Stakeholders will closely monitor how this disagreement impacts the pace of justice delivery in Ghana.