|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Introduction
Ghana’s legal vacation has suddenly become a major legal controversy, with some senior lawyers visibly opposed to a warrant issued by the country’s Chief Justice for two judges hearing controversial cases to sit during the period.
What is normally a period of reduced activity in the superior courts has turned into a dispute between the Judiciary and sections of the legal profession.
Legal vacations in Ghana and the types of vacation
Under Order 79 Rule 4 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), there are three vacations in the country’s legal year. These are the Easter vacation, the Christmas vacation, and the long vacation.
The long vacation is the one currently generating controversy. It runs from August 1 to September 30 of every year, according to the law. The Ghana Bar Association has described the period as an important part of the legal calendar. The GBA says the vacation allows the Bench, the Bar, and judicial staff to recover from the demands of the court year.
However, legal vacation does not mean that the courts completely shut down. The holiday is granted only to superior courts, including the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court. The lower courts, including the District Court and Circuit Court, hear cases during this period.
Order 79 Rule 1(1) of C.I. 47 empowers the Chief Justice to appoint any day, including days during vacation, for the hearing of causes or matters as circumstances require.
Further, Article 125(4) of the country’s 1992 Constitution,
“The Chief Justice shall, subject to this Constitution, be the Head of the Judiciary and shall be responsible for the administration and supervision of the Judiciary.”
Warrant issued by the Chief Justice and public reactions
In exercise of his powers, the Chief Justice, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, authorised some judges to sit during the current legal vacation.
The decision triggered strong reactions from lawyers, the Ghana Bar Association and the Attorney-General’s office.
There were concerns that high-profile cases involving key opposition figures, particularly cases involving former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahen and former NAFCO Chief Executive Officer Hanan Abdul-Wahab, would be heard by the vacation judges.
The lawyers representing the accused persons have objected to the warrant. They asked that the cases be deferred until October, after the long vacation.
The lawyers included former Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame, Samuel Atta Akyea and lawyers from Sam Okudzeto & Associates. They cited prior commitments during the vacation and objected to being required to continue the proceedings during the recess.
The lawyers for the accused persons further argued that vacation courts traditionally hear motions and other emergency cases, not trials.
The opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) also described the Chief Justice’s warrant as discriminatory, calling for an adjournment of the case to October 2026.
“The New Patriotic Party therefore calls on the Chief Justice to immediately withdraw the warrants for vacation trials so that the affected cases resume, like all others, when the legal term reopens,” NPP General Secretary Justin Kodua Frimpong said in a statement released on Aug 11. 2026.
The Ghana Bar Association similarly joined the accused lawyers to call for an adjournment of the cases.
In a letter to the Chief Justice dated August 10, 2026, the GBA said it had received complaints from the affected law firms. It maintained that vacation courts have traditionally dealt with urgent and interlocutory matters rather than trials.
The GBA went further. It said the availability of counsel has traditionally been an important consideration during vacation. In its view, counsel should not be compelled to appear when they have indicated that they are unavailable during the vacation.
“It is in respect of this time-honoured 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 in its statement on the subject.
But the Attorney-General has rejected calls to adjourn the cases. Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, said the position that vacation courts cannot conduct trials has no legal basis.
According to him, the fact that the courts are on vacation does not mean they have stopped functioning. Some judges are specifically authorised to work during the period, he noted.
“The Chief Justice allows a Judge to work in the vacation by issuing what we call a “warrant” to the Judge. The Chief Justice’s warrant to a Judge to sit during the legal vacation allows the judge – known as a ‘vacation Judge’ – to hear two kinds of cases. The kinds of cases are (1) cases in his own court, and (2) cases in the courts of other judges who are on vacation. Note this, too, down,” he said.
He also disputes the claim that lawyers can determine whether a case proceeds simply by declaring themselves unavailable.
Dr Srem-Sai cautioned that lawyers who refuse to appear could expose their clients to consequences. He says a judge authorised to sit has the power to proceed even where counsel fails to attend.
Also reacting to the pushback, the Chief Justice rejected the lawyers’ request to defer the Adu-Boahen and Abdul-Wahab cases until October.
Speaking on the issue, he stressed that adjournments are matters for the courts. They are not administrative decisions that lawyers can determine simply because the matter falls within the legal vacation.
Supreme Court Suit Challenging the Chief Justice’s Warrant
Meanwhile, the Ofoase-Ayirebi Member of Parliament, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, has invoked the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to challenge the Chief Justice’s warrant.
He argues that continuing certain criminal cases during the vacation while others are not amounts to “selective justice” and violates constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness, particularly Articles 17, 23 and 296 of the 1992 Constitution.
He is therefore challenging Order 79, rules 1(1) and 2 of C.I. 47, arguing that they are unconstitutional insofar as they permit the selection of cases for hearing during legal vacation.
He further raises concerns about the directive’s effect on the working conditions and welfare of lawyers and Judicial Service staff.
The lawmaker and lawyer also applied for an interlocutory injunction to temporarily stop the affected High Court criminal trials from proceeding during the vacation until the substantive constitutional case is determined.
However, the Supreme Court on Aug. 21, 2026, dismissed the motion for interlocutory injunction, holding the Chief Justice’s warrant does not amount to discrimination.
“…it is factually inaccurate to say that the warrants required the Judges to conduct trials in “selected cases.” It is plain on the face of the warrants that the Judges have been given authorisation to conduct hearings in all cases pending in their courts,” the Court said at paragraph 4 of page 7 of the judgment.
Page 7 of the Supreme Court’s judgement
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s determination of the dispute before it will settle the legal vacation controversy sparked by the Chief Justice’s warrant and define the future of such vacations.
