Deputy Attorney General Justice Srem Sai has criticised the Ghana Bar Association’s position on court proceedings during the legal vacation, arguing that the professional body is attempting to transform a longstanding accommodation traditionally extended to lawyers into a legal entitlement that would enable them to determine which cases should proceed before the courts.
Speaking on JoyNews’ Top Story, Justice Srem Sai maintained that the authority to determine whether substantive proceedings should continue during the legal vacation rests ultimately with the judge presiding over a particular case.
He explained that lawyers may approach a judge during the legal vacation and make representations about the scheduling of proceedings, particularly where they believe that the circumstances of a case make it appropriate to continue hearing substantive matters.
According to him, judges have historically exercised discretion in such situations by accommodating requests from legal practitioners and, where appropriate, agreeing to adjust court schedules to allow substantive proceedings to continue during the vacation period.
He noted that a judge could agree to such an arrangement or modify the proposed schedule by determining how many weeks lawyers should remain away from court before returning to deal with a particular matter.
Justice Srem Sai emphasised that such decisions form part of the judicial discretion exercised by judges and argued that the practice of accommodating lawyers during the legal vacation should not be interpreted as conferring an independent decision making authority on the legal profession.
“The problem presented by this current plea from the Ghana Bar Association is that they seem to be converting that which is an accommodation given to lawyers during legal vacation into a right and indeed a power on the part of lawyers to now sit in their offices and declare that because it’s legal vacation, they will choose which cases to pursue and how to pursue them and the judge has no say in that,” he said.
The Deputy Attorney General argued that such an interpretation had no foundation in law or established judicial practice. He maintained that lawyers could not unilaterally decide that a case should not proceed simply because the courts were operating under the legal vacation schedule.
According to Justice Srem Sai, the authority to determine whether proceedings should continue belongs to the judiciary, particularly the judge assigned to hear the matter, rather than to lawyers appearing before the court.
“That has no basis in law. It has no basis in practice. That will be supported by progressive vision and the right to trial,” he said.
He further described the position emerging from the disagreement as a new interpretation that, in his view, was not supported by established practice within Ghana’s legal system.
Justice Srem Sai’s comments come amid an increasingly public disagreement between the Attorney General’s Office and the Ghana Bar Association over the conduct of substantive court proceedings during the legal vacation.
The controversy centres on the extent to which the traditional legal vacation should limit substantive hearings and the circumstances under which judges may direct that particular cases continue despite the reduced judicial schedule.
The issue has become particularly prominent in connection with the ongoing criminal trial involving former National Signals Bureau Director General Kwabena Adu Boahene.
Defence lawyer Samuel Atta Akyea has rejected suggestions that the defence is deliberately using the legal vacation as a mechanism to delay the proceedings. Mr Atta Akyea, who also addressed the matter on Top Story, insisted that he has consistently attended court and maintained that the defence has not sought to frustrate the prosecution or obstruct the progress of the trial.
The disagreement has consequently developed into a broader discussion about the respective responsibilities of judges and lawyers during the legal vacation and the extent to which customary professional arrangements should influence the scheduling of substantive criminal proceedings.
For Justice Srem Sai, the central principle is that the legal vacation does not transfer judicial authority to lawyers. While legal practitioners may make representations regarding the scheduling of cases and judges may take those representations into consideration, the ultimate determination of whether a substantive matter should proceed remains a judicial decision.
The Deputy Attorney General’s position therefore places emphasis on judicial discretion as the determining factor in the management of cases during the vacation period, while the Ghana Bar Association’s concerns have focused on the established conventions surrounding the limited nature of substantive proceedings during that period.
The continuing disagreement is likely to sustain wider debate within Ghana’s legal community over the purpose of the legal vacation, the professional accommodations traditionally associated with it and the extent of judicial authority to require lawyers and accused persons to participate in proceedings while the courts are operating under a vacation schedule.
At the heart of the controversy is the question of how Ghana’s justice system should balance the need for efficient and timely adjudication against established professional practices designed to provide judges and lawyers with a period of respite, while ensuring that the constitutional right to a fair and timely trial remains protected.
(IMAGE Credit: PulseGhana)
