Deputy Attorney General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai has issued a strongly critical assessment of the Ghana Bar Association’s (GBA) interpretation of legal vacation, characterizing it as “bizarre” and “not workable.” He contends that the position could effectively prevent judges from hearing their own cases for months, potentially hindering the administration of justice. This criticism follows concerns from the GBA and defense lawyers regarding trials during the legal vacation, which currently runs from August 1 to September 30 for Ghana’s superior courts.
The Judiciary continues to designate vacation courts to handle urgent matters during this period, and Justice Srem-Sai highlighted that a vacation judge remains entitled to his or her own vacation. He stated that when a judge works during the vacation, the judge subsequently proceeds on vacation when the courts resume. “A vacation judge is also a judge who is entitled to his vacation, so when he works on vacation, what he does is that, just as the courts come back, then he goes, proceeds on his vacation.”
He rejected the notion that a vacation judge should only handle motions and urgent matters. According to Justice Srem-Sai, the Chief Justice may attach cases from other courts to a vacation court, but the judge can still hear the substantive matters in cases belonging to that judge’s own court. He warned that giving lawyers such control could undermine judges’ role in balancing competing interests. ‘What it means is that now lawyers are deciding how cases should be conducted, which is never the essence of establishing a judiciary,’ he asserted. He further stated that lawyers on opposing sides could naturally have different interests, with one seeking a speedy trial and the other preferring delays. ‘That is why we need a judge to balance the interests and give us where justice will be,’ he said.
He acknowledged, however, that there can be strategic reasons for defense lawyers to seek delays, particularly because evidence can deteriorate and memories can fade over time. On accusations that the government is pushing cases through the vacation courts to satisfy political supporters, Justice Srem-Sai said political and constitutional interests can coincide. ‘So, the NDC’s interest in this case seems to align with the constitutional demand, so there’s nothing wrong about that,’ he stated. He further argued that if the government were manipulating the courts, other cases would not be proceeding while some judges are on vacation. ‘There are cases, oral cases before some judges who are not vacation judges; those cases are not moving because the judges in those cases are on vacation.’
He rejected claims that the government is manipulating the legal vacation to secure convictions, insisting that such allegations must be supported by evidence. He further argued that if the Chief Justice has done so, at least the evidence shows that it is the standard practice for decades, for so many years, in this country that during vacation judges sit, vacation courts are appointed.
He requested the Takoradi Girls case as an example, stating it was tried during the legal vacation despite protests from defense counsel. Justice Srem-Sai also disputed the claim that lawyers must agree before a trial can proceed during the vacation. He warned that giving lawyers such control could undermine judges’ role in balancing competing interests. ‘What it means is that now lawyers are deciding how cases should be conducted, which is never the essence of establishing a judiciary,’ he said. He concluded by emphasizing that the Constitution requires accused persons to receive a fair and speedy trial. ‘I want it fast, and I want it fast because the law, the Constitution, demands that we conduct trials fast, quickly, speedily,’ he stated. He further argued that if the government were manipulating the courts, other cases would not be proceeding while some judges are on vacation. ‘There are cases, oral cases before some judges who are not vacation judges; those cases are not moving because the judges in those cases are on vacation.’
This situation has intensified debate among legal professionals and observers regarding the potential impact of vacation judges on judicial impartiality and the overall administration of justice in Ghana. The GBA’s interpretation represents a significant challenge to the current legal framework.
Source: Adom Online
