The legal vacation, spanning from August 1st to September 30th, is not viewed as a period of unilateral decision-making for lawyers to unilaterally determine court proceedings’ continuation, as Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Dr Justice Srem-Sai has stated. Dr Srem-Sai emphasized that this period represents a significant reduction in judicial activity, not a complete cessation of court operations. His comments follow a recent letter from the Ghana Bar Association, urging Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie to ensure judges adhere to established traditions governing the legal vacation.
Dr Srem-Sai clarified that the legal vacation is not, in essence, a ‘lawyers’ vacation. The judiciary continues to function during this period, a crucial point underscored by the Chief Justice’s authority in determining which judges preside during the vacation.
He explained that the Chief Justice determines which judges are assigned to sit in court during the vacation through warrants authorizing them to perform judicial duties. This arrangement allows for the distinct handling of interlocutory and substantive matters, with the crucial distinction being that only the judge responsible for the case can ultimately decide its outcome. The system is designed to maintain continuity in the administration of justice while granting judges the opportunity to take their own vacation periods at appropriate times.
Specifically, the vacation judge can hear both interlocutory and substantive proceedings within their own court, while cases originating from another judge’s court are limited to interlocutory matters. This distinction is vital because only the judge presiding over the case can ultimately determine it. Dr Srem-Sai maintained that the existing framework prioritizes continuity in judicial administration while allowing judges to utilize their vacation time flexibly.
Furthermore, the legal vacation’s structure is predicated on the principle that only the judge presiding over the case can ultimately determine the case’s outcome. The GBA has expressed significant objection to lawyers being directed to appear in court after indicating unavailability, a practice the association argues undermines the established traditions governing the legal vacation.
The Association contends that Vacation Courts traditionally handle urgent and interlocutory matters, distinct from trials, and that counsel should be directed to adjourn rather than proceed without them. Dr Srem-Sai’s statement underscores that the courts scale down on work significantly – they do not shut down – and that the Chief Justice retains ultimate control over the judicial calendar during the period. The legal vacation serves as a vital component of the judicial system’s operational framework, ensuring continuity while providing judges with the flexibility to manage their personal time effectively.
Watch Related Video
Source: MyJoyOnline
