The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) has raised concerns over the continued hearing of part-heard criminal cases during the legal vacation, warning that compelling lawyers to appear could undermine established court traditions and amount to selective justice.
In a letter to the Chief Justice, Justice Paul Baffoe Bonnie, on Monday, 10 August, the GBA said it had received petitions from three law firms after their lawyers were served with notices requiring them to appear before specific judges to continue with part-heard criminal cases during the vacation.
The petitions were brought by Zoe, Akyea & Co, Dame & Partners and Sam Okudzeto & Associates.
The GBA, while congratulating the Judiciary on the successful celebration of the 150th anniversary of the Supreme Court Ordinance of 1876, said the development had come shortly after the legal profession entered its annual vacation following the celebrations, which ran from April 16 to July 31, 2026.
According to the Association, the second and longest legal vacation runs from August 1 to September 30 under Order 79, Rule 4 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47).
It said the vacation was established to provide judges, lawyers and judicial staff with a necessary period of rest after the demanding second term of the legal year.
The GBA acknowledged that the Judiciary, in consultation with stakeholders, had over the years designated certain courts as Vacation Courts to deal with emergencies during the period.
However, it stressed that the jurisdiction of such courts has traditionally been limited to urgent and interlocutory matters and does not extend to conducting trials.
The Association noted that the introduction of Virtual Courts had not changed this position, saying virtual sittings during the vacation operate within the same limited scope and do not conduct trials.
Lawyers ‘not under compulsion’
The GBA was particularly emphatic that lawyers cannot be compelled to appear before a Vacation Court when they are unavailable.
It said the availability and willingness of counsel has always been a key consideration in determining whether a matter can proceed during the legal vacation.
“Counsel are not under any compulsion whatsoever to appear before a Vacation Court,” the Association stated.
It argued that where counsel for either side informs the court that they are unavailable during the vacation, the court should not proceed with the matter.
The Association further cautioned that an accused or other innocent party should not be forced to represent themselves simply because their lawyer is unavailable during the vacation.
“Innocent parties in a trial, civil or criminal, ought not be coerced by a Judge to represent themselves as the absence of a Lawyer is not considered willful during a Legal Vacation,” it said.
According to the GBA, the appropriate action in such circumstances is for the judge to adjourn the matter to a date proposed by counsel.
GBA warns of ‘selective justice’
The Bar Association warned that any attempt to bypass the established practice, whether through the use of warrants or otherwise, could raise questions about fairness in the administration of justice.
“It is in respect of this time-honored tradition that we write, as any attempt to do otherwise, with or without a warrant will smack of bias or selective justice,” the GBA said.
The Association also pointed to the increasing workload faced by lawyers, particularly following the introduction of afternoon court sittings under the new court schedule.
It said some lawyers had already been assigned submissions to prepare during the vacation, while others had commitments in other jurisdictions, conferences and other professional engagements.
Some law firms, it added, had also closed for the entire legal vacation.
The GBA said lawyers, like other professionals, require adequate time away from work to protect their wellbeing and maintain a healthy work-life balance.
“Duly earned vacations must therefore, not be tampered with,” it stated.
The Association reaffirmed its commitment to working with the Judiciary to improve the speed and efficiency of justice delivery but urged the Judiciary to reciprocate by respecting the rules and long-standing traditions governing legal vacations.
It expressed confidence that the petitions submitted by the affected law firms would be considered favourably.
The letter was signed by the National President of the GBA, Efua Ghartey, and copied to the Judicial Secretary of the Supreme Court, the Registrar of the High Court (Specialised Division 1), as well as representatives of the three affected law firms.
