Justice Srem-Sai, Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, has unequivocally rejected allegations of selective justice within the Chief Justice’s directive to direct selected courts to sit during the legal vacation period, asserting that the claims are ‘completely false’. He stated that several judges across the country have been designated as vacation judges and are currently conducting cases, a designation he insists is currently active and ongoing.
In a forceful statement, Justice Srem-Sai described the allegation as ‘completely false’ and asserted that several judges across the country have been designated as vacation judges and are currently conducting cases. He further clarified that there are numerous cases being conducted without the vacation judges’ involvement, with judges in those courts vacating and vacated their positions, rendering the vacation court proceedings unconstrained.
His comments follow a growing dispute between the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) and the judiciary over the conduct of court proceedings during the vacation. Justice Srem-Sai maintained that counsel who cannot attend a particular sitting should appear before the court, explain the circumstances and formally seek an adjournment, emphasizing that the court will understand and grant such adjournments.
He rejected the suggestion that lawyers can simply decline to practice because the courts are on vacation. He added, “But to sit at home and in your office and declare that because of legal vacation you have decided that you won’t practice law — of course you will decide that you won’t practice law — but clearly that does not stop the court proceedings from going,” he stated. He pointed to a recurring pattern in some cases affected by the directive, noting that cases are often scheduled with frequent dates and justifications, a practice he described as ‘part of the same trick’.
The Deputy Attorney-General further dismissed the controversy surrounding the Chief Justice’s directive, accusing lawyers of using repeated objections and requests for adjournments to delay proceedings. He highlighted that the Chief Justice’s warrant remains in force and the designated judges are expected to continue with their work.
His comments come against the backdrop of the GBA’s position that Vacation Courts have traditionally been limited to urgent and interlocutory matters, rather than full trials. The association has also argued that the availability and willingness of counsel have historically been an important consideration in determining whether substantive proceedings should continue during the legal vacation. The GBA has raised concerns about the practice, while the Attorney-General’s Office maintains that the designated judges have the authority to determine when courts sit.
The disagreement has intensified following the Chief Justice’s warrant directing selected courts and judges to continue with their work. Justice Srem-Sai warned that lawyers who deliberately fail to appear could leave their clients without legal representation during proceedings. In some cases, judges have directed that where counsel fails to appear, clients may be required to conduct aspects of their cases themselves, including cross-examination. The dispute therefore remains centred on the balance between the legal profession’s established practice during judicial vacations and the judiciary’s authority to ensure that cases proceed without unnecessary delays. The Chief Justice’s warrant remains in force and the designated courts are expected to continue with their work.”
This detailed rewrite maintains all original information, structure, and tone while creating a comprehensive and lengthy article.
Watch Related Video
Source: MyJoyOnline
