Legal vacation does not mean lawyers can halt court proceedings – Deputy Attorney-General
Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, has clarified that Ghana’s legal vacation should not be regarded as a period during which lawyers can unilaterally decide whether court proceedings should continue.
According to him, the legal vacation, which runs from August 1 to September 30, is intended to significantly reduce the workload of the superior courts but does not amount to a complete shutdown of judicial operations.
Dr Srem-Sai explained that the period traditionally represents a reduction in judicial activity rather than a suspension of court proceedings.
His comments come after the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) petitioned Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie to ensure that judges adhere to established traditions governing the legal vacation.
The GBA has raised concerns about lawyers being directed to appear in court after informing the judiciary that they would be unavailable during the period.
The association maintains that Vacation Courts have traditionally been established to deal with urgent and interlocutory matters and have generally not been used to conduct trials. It has therefore argued that where counsel indicates an inability to attend court during the vacation, the matter should be adjourned instead of proceeding without the lawyer.
Dr Srem-Sai, however, stressed that the legal vacation is not a “lawyers’ vacation” and that the courts remain operational throughout the period.
He explained that the Chief Justice determines which judges sit during the legal vacation through warrants authorising them to perform judicial functions.
“The key point here, however, is that the courts scale down on work significantly – they do not shut down,” he said.
According to the Deputy Attorney-General, a Vacation Judge may hear both interlocutory and substantive matters in cases originating from the judge’s own court.
However, where a case originates from another judge’s court, the Vacation Judge may generally deal only with interlocutory matters.
Dr Srem-Sai explained that the distinction is necessary because the substantive judge assigned to a case remains responsible for ultimately determining it.
He maintained that the existing arrangement is intended to strike a balance between ensuring continuity in the administration of justice and allowing judges to take their vacation periods at appropriate times.