Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, has rejected the Ghana Bar Association’s (GBA) position on court proceedings during the legal vacation, describing it as a “self-imposed understanding” with no basis in law.

Dr Srem-Sai said there was no legal impediment to judges authorised by the Chief Justice sitting and hearing cases during the legal vacation.

“No genuine or real controversy here. The matter is simple. It’s been the case that vacation courts are always sitting whenever there is a legal vacation,” he said.

His comments follow a disagreement between the government and the GBA over whether lawyers should be required to participate in court proceedings during the current legal vacation.

Dr Srem-Sai said the authority to determine when courts sit rests with the judiciary and not lawyers appearing before them.

“The claim that it is the lawyers who decide whether they want to have proceedings on vacation is not founded on any facts; it’s not founded on any law, it’s not founded on reason, and it is not founded on any rule of practice,” he said.

“Nowhere in the world do you see lawyers deciding when a court should sit.”

He said the Chief Justice had authorised at least 10 judges to sit across the country during the vacation to deal with cases assigned to them.

“What matters is that the head of the judiciary has given warrants for a number of judges, I think 10 or more judges, to sit across the country to take care of cases,” he said.

Dr Srem-Sai argued that preventing vacation judges from hearing cases could result in further delays because the judges could subsequently proceed on leave after the legal vacation.

He said such an arrangement could mean that some cases would not be heard until January next year.

“If you make the argument, as the GBA president is making, that a vacation judge is not required or cannot hear cases or conduct trial, then when the vacation is over and he goes on vacation, no other judge can have trial for them,” he said.

“So basically what the GBA is saying is that for cases that are pending in the courts that have vacation judges, those cases can only conduct trials in January next year.”

Dr Srem-Sai cited Order 79 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), as providing a legal basis for courts to sit during vacation periods.

He said Order 79 Rule 1 allows the Chief Justice to appoint any day, including days during a legal vacation, for the hearing of causes or matters when circumstances require.

He therefore rejected the GBA’s assertion that a convention exists preventing lawyers from conducting proceedings during legal vacation.

“And they claim that there is a convention is completely even false. There is no such convention,” he said.

“And even if there is a convention, Order 79 of C.I. 47 is the order that provides expressly for legal vacation.”

The Deputy Attorney-General also warned that lawyers who choose not to appear before a duly authorised vacation court could face consequences for their clients’ cases.

He said a judge authorised to sit during the vacation had the power to proceed with a case even where a lawyer failed to appear.

“If you don’t come, he will treat it as if you are not interested in legal representation,” Dr Srem-Sai said.

He said accused persons whose lawyers failed to appear could be required to proceed without counsel if they failed to secure representation after an adjournment, subject to applicable legal safeguards.

“If on the next adjournment date, he does not produce a lawyer… then they will have to conduct the cross-examination by themselves,” he said.

Dr Srem-Sai said allowing the legal vacation to prevent duly authorised courts from hearing cases would undermine the timely administration of justice.

The disagreement comes amid concerns over delays in the prosecution of corruption and other high-profile criminal cases.

The Attorney-General’s Office has previously said it has identified about 30 cases under the Operation Recover All Loot (ORAL) initiative that it considers prosecutable, with between five and 10 at advanced stages before the courts.

Dr Srem-Sai has also indicated that prosecutors intended to use the legal vacation period to file additional cases under the initiative.

The government’s position is that the legal vacation should not prevent courts from dealing with cases where judges have been duly authorised by the Chief Justice to sit.