Chief Justice Rejects GBA’s Position on Court Cases During Legal Vacation
Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie has rejected concerns raised by the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) over lawyers being required to appear in court during the legal vacation.
The Chief Justice defended the authority of judges to hear cases during the vacation, insisting that lawyers cannot unilaterally decide not to appear simply because a case has been scheduled within the period.
Speaking at the 2nd Quadrennial Delegates Congress of the Senior Staff Association of the Judicial Service of Ghana in Sunyani in the Bono Region, Justice Baffoe-Bonnie said a lawyer’s personal arrangements during the legal vacation could not prevent a judge who had been assigned to sit from hearing a case.
He explained that lawyers who wished to take leave during the period could do so if their clients agreed, but could not use the legal vacation as a basis for refusing to appear before a sitting judge.
“To write to the Chief Justice to say that, the cases should not be adjourned to the vacation so I am not coming, I have already made arrangements outside so I am not coming.
“You are a lawyer, you have your clients. If your clients decide to give you leave, well, go on leave but you cannot say that there is a legal vacation and the Judge who is actually sitting cannot do your case, no that is not it,” he stated.
‘Adjournment is a judicial act’
The Chief Justice also stressed that decisions on whether to adjourn cases are matters for the judiciary and do not rest with the Chief Justice.
“No, adjournments are not at the instance of the Chief Justice, adjournment is a judicial act. This is something that is so basic,” he stated.
His comments follow a letter from the Ghana Bar Association appealing to the Chief Justice over the scheduling of cases during the legal vacation.
In a letter dated August 10, 2026, the GBA argued that lawyers who had indicated their unavailability during the vacation should not be compelled to appear in court.
The Association said it was responding to petitions from Zoe, Akyea & Co, Dame & Partners and Sam Okudzeto & Associates, who raised concerns about notices served on them following warrants issued to specific judges to continue hearing part-heard criminal cases during the vacation.
GBA cites legal vacation rules
The GBA said the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, C.I. 47, specifically Order 79, Rule 4, provides for three legal vacations each year.
According to the Association, the second and longest vacation runs from August 1 to September 30 and is intended to provide judges, lawyers and judicial staff with a period of rest after the second term, which it described as the longest in the legal calendar.
While acknowledging that Vacation Courts and Virtual Courts have traditionally been designated to handle urgent matters, including interlocutory applications, the GBA said such courts do not conduct trials.
The Association maintained that the availability and willingness of counsel to appear should remain a key consideration for matters listed before a Vacation Judge.
It argued that lawyers were not under compulsion to attend court during the legal vacation.
“Once Counsel in a matter indicates their unavailability to attend Court during the vacation, even though the Court may have listed their case, it cannot proceed with the case in any way,” the GBA stated.
The Association said the position applied whether one or both sides in a case indicated that they were unavailable to proceed.
The GBA further argued that parties in civil and criminal proceedings should not be forced to represent themselves because their lawyers were unavailable during the legal vacation.
It maintained that the absence of counsel during the vacation should not be treated as wilful and that, in such circumstances, no step should be taken beyond adjourning the matter to dates proposed by counsel.
Debate over court proceedings during vacation
The disagreement has triggered a broader debate over the scope of judicial proceedings during Ghana’s legal vacation and the respective authority of judges and lawyers in determining whether cases should proceed.
Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, has also maintained that the decision on whether proceedings should continue rests with the bench rather than lawyers.
The ongoing debate centres on the balance between the judiciary’s authority to manage its cases and the established practice of legal vacation, which provides lawyers and judicial officers with a period of rest while allowing designated courts to deal with matters that require urgent attention.
