Former Deputy Attorney General Alfred Tuah-Yeboah has publicly questioned the decision to select only 'Operation Recover All Loot' (ORAL) cases for substantive hearings during the legal vacation. This criticism follows a directive from Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie for specific high-profile criminal cases to proceed during the traditional recess period.
Mr. Tuah-Yeboah expressed concern that lawyers were not adequately consulted in the process of determining which substantive matters should continue. He highlighted the established practice where substantive hearings are typically suspended during the legal vacation, unless there are compelling and universally accepted reasons to proceed. This practice ensures fairness and predictability within the legal system.
This development fits into a broader discussion about judicial efficiency and access to justice in Ghana. The legal vacation, traditionally a period for judges and lawyers to rest, has become a point of contention regarding the pace of case resolution. Critics argue that prolonged adjournments contribute to backlogs, impacting economic activity and investor confidence by delaying commercial disputes.
“If the lawyers were involved, I can assure you, perhaps the reasons that may be offered may to some extent be acceptable to the lawyers,” Mr. Tuah-Yeboah stated. He acknowledged that certain exceptional circumstances, such as a very old or sick witness whose testimony is critical, could justify continuing a case during vacation. However, he questioned why similar consideration is not extended to the thousands of other cases pending before the High Court, particularly civil matters involving injunctions over properties.
The implications of this selective approach are significant for the Ghanaian legal landscape. If substantive hearings during vacation become a norm, it could set a precedent that impacts future legal practice and the workload of legal professionals. Decision-makers will need to address concerns about fairness and consistency to maintain public trust in the judiciary. The legal community will closely watch how the Chief Justice responds to these concerns and whether broader reforms are considered for vacation period case management.
Mr. Tuah-Yeboah cautioned lawyers against accepting the current arrangement simply because it might benefit them in specific instances. He warned that a precedent established today could have wider, unintended implications for legal practice in the future. He emphasized the need for careful consideration of such changes.
He further noted that in his 24 years of legal practice, he had never been compelled to appear in court for substantive cases during the legal vacation. He recalled instances of murder cases with jury trials where, even if proceedings were ongoing as the legal year ended, judges traditionally adjourned such cases until the new legal year. This historical practice underscores the unusual nature of the current directive.
Mr. Tuah-Yeboah pointed out that while this traditional practice could sometimes create difficulties, such as a juror dying during vacation requiring a trial to start afresh, any new system must be applied consistently. He argued that if substantive hearings are to be introduced during the legal vacation, the practice should be applied uniformly across the judiciary, rather than selectively. He challenged authorities to confirm whether all judges with warrants to sit during vacation would actually conduct substantive hearings.
The former Deputy AG highlighted that the fact that only two specialized courts are expected to conduct substantive hearings during the vacation is what has fueled concerns about selectivity. This limited scope raises questions about the underlying criteria for case prioritization and the broader commitment to addressing judicial backlogs across all case types.