The issuance of a warrant by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie to allow judges to sit during the 2026 Legal Vacation has ignited a significant legal dispute within Ghana’s judiciary, directly challenging private legal practitioner Samuel Atta Akyea’s assertion that vacation judges are restricted to emergency and motion-based cases. The warrant, issued on August 20, 2026, details the judge’s authorization to participate in hearings within the Specialised Court ‘1’ at Accra’s Accra Law Court Complex.
The document, addressed to His Lordship Justice Francis Apongabuno Achibonga, grants the judge the authority to ‘conduct hearings’ during the vacation period. It meticulously avoids specifying the types of cases the judge is permitted to handle, simply stating the requirement to ‘conduct hearings.’
This directly contradicts Atta Akyea’s argument during a recent interview on JoyNews’ ‘Top Story’ segment, where he insisted that vacation judges are exclusively restricted to emergency and motion proceedings, excluding substantive trials. Akyea stated that vacation judges must ‘go to bed’ and that only emergency matters should be entertained.
He accused the judiciary of employing ‘selective justice’ by allowing certain cases to proceed while others are adjourned. Specifically, he declared, ‘Why do we have to change this thing because there are some special cases in the eyes of somebody and there are some special judges who should continue working? What is the emergency about this case? … I’ll not be part of it,’ demonstrating a firm conviction that vacation judges should not be involved in the proceedings.
The warrant also authorizes Justice Achibonga to sit as an additional High Court Judge at the Specialised Court ‘1’ during the vacation, a designation that confirms his authority to preside over cases within that court.
The GBA, the Ghana Bar Association, had previously argued that Vacation Courts traditionally handle only emergencies and interlocutory matters, not trials, and that counsel’s availability has always been the overriding consideration. However, Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai has consistently maintained that the GBA’s position is unsupported by law, reason, or any established legal precedent, asserting that the bench, not the bar, determines when courts should sit. The Chief Justice’s warrant, dated August 20, 2026, does not outline any restrictions on the vacation judge’s ability to conduct hearings; instead, it grants him the authority to sit and ‘conduct hearings’ without limitations.
The document also includes a stipulation that the vacation judge should only handle emergencies, motions, and interlocutory applications. It emphasizes that the judge’s authority to sit and ‘conduct hearings’ is not qualified.
The GBA has indicated that the Court seeks to uphold the traditional role of Vacation Courts as exclusively handling emergencies and interlocutory matters, ensuring the judiciary’s ability to handle matters without interruption during the legal vacation period. The issuance of this warrant has triggered significant debate within the legal community, with legal experts analyzing its implications for the judiciary’s operational framework and the interpretation of established judicial precedents.
Watch Related Video
Source: MyJoyOnline
