Ghana Bar Association Urges Chief Justice to Uphold Legal Vacation Rules Amid Criminal Trial Concerns
The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) has urged the Chief Justice, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, to ensure strict adherence to legal vacation rules, particularly following concerns over attempts to continue hearing part-heard criminal cases during the annual court break.
The call was contained in a letter dated August 10, 2026, and signed by the GBA National President, Efua Ghartey.
The Association said it had received petitions from the law firms of Zoe, Akyea & Co, Dame & Partners, and Sam Okudzeto & Associates, protesting notices served on them following warrants issued to specific judges to continue hearing part-heard criminal cases during the legal vacation.
According to the GBA, the concerns arose shortly after activities marking the 150th anniversary of the Supreme Court Ordinance of 1876, which concluded on July 31, 2026.
The Association said the legal vacation is expressly provided for under the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), which stipulate that the second vacation of the legal year runs from August 1 to September 30.
It explained that the vacation period was deliberately established to allow judges, lawyers and judicial staff to recover from the demands of the court calendar, particularly following the second term, which it described as the longest in the legal year.
While acknowledging that some courts are designated as vacation courts to handle emergencies during the break, the GBA stressed that such courts traditionally deal only with urgent interlocutory matters and do not conduct trials.
It added that the same practice applies to virtual courts operating during the vacation period.
The Association further emphasised that the longstanding principle governing vacation courts is the voluntary availability of lawyers.
“Counsel are not under any compulsion whatsoever to appear before a Vacation Court,” the GBA stated.
It said where lawyers indicate that they are unavailable during the vacation, courts should not proceed with the matter.
“Once Counsel in a matter indicates their unavailability to attend Court during the vacation, even though the Court may have listed their case, it cannot proceed with the case in any way, if Counsel on either side or on both sides indicate their inability to proceed with the scheduled matter in Court during the vacation,” the letter said.
The GBA also argued that litigants should not be compelled to represent themselves simply because their lawyers are unavailable during a legally recognised vacation period.
“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,” the Association said.
It warned that proceeding with cases despite the unavailability of counsel could create perceptions of unfairness and selective 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 letter stated.
The Association also drew attention to the increasing workload on legal practitioners, including the recent introduction of afternoon court sittings.
It said many lawyers had already scheduled holidays, conferences and other professional commitments outside the jurisdiction during the vacation period.
“Respectfully My Lord, the Lawyers are personally responsible for their well being and they have to maintain a healthy work-life balance. Duly earned vacations must therefore, not be tampered with,” the GBA stated.
Reaffirming its commitment to supporting the efficient administration of justice, the Association said it remained confident that the Judiciary would uphold both the Rules of Court and the longstanding traditions governing legal vacations.
“In light of the above, we are confident that the said petitions will be considered favourably,” the GBA concluded.
