Lawyer Samuel Atta Akyea has expressed significant concern regarding the Chief Justice’s directive to expedite the hearing of two high-profile criminal cases, specifically those involving former National Signals Bureau (NSB) boss Kwabena Adu-Boahene. Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express, Mr. Akyea questioned the practice of prioritizing certain cases while others remain pending, raising concerns about potential selective justice.
He stated that the directive, he describes as ‘selective justice,’ is intended to force judges to concentrate on selected cases, seemingly disregarding established court procedures and the availability of lawyers representing clients with other professional obligations. ‘I keep asking why this selective justice, the Chief Justice trying to force on us?’ he questioned, emphasizing the potential for disrupting established legal traditions. He argued that directing judges to prioritize cases without considering the involvement of lawyers who may have other commitments – including those abroad for medical treatment or professional conferences – is problematic.
Mr. Akyea highlighted that the expedited hearing directive is particularly concerning, given the significance of the two cases in question. He asserted that the judge should continue the trials without reference to the programs of the lawyers involved, irrespective of their location or professional status. ‘So part-heard cases should continue, and these are without the reference to the programs of the lawyers, whether the lawyers who go abroad to do some good medication, or the lawyers who go to the national bar conference, or the lawyers who travel whatever,’ he said. He expressed his belief that this directive could undermine established legal procedures and statutory provisions.
He further rejected suggestions that junior lawyers could represent Mr. Adu-Boahene, stating that the case is not for junior lawyers to handle. ‘The case is not for junior lawyers to handle. If you see what is going on in the realm, you know,’ he said. He insisted that his experience was necessary due to the nature of the case and the national security implications it raises. ‘I mean to come to terms with a case that since Guggisberg time or the Gold Coast, a national security matter has never been a subject matter of an open trial,’ he said. He further argued that the case presented an unprecedented challenge because of the implications for national security.
He concluded by stating that the case necessitated a review of the legal framework and statutory provisions, suggesting that the expedited hearing directive could have significant repercussions for national security and the administration of justice. He reiterated his belief that the Attorney General should not have intervened in the case, and that he could not cede space to a junior to handle the case.
Source: Adom Online
