The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) has called on Chief Justice, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, to ensure strict observance of legal vacation rules, following concerns raised by lawyers over attempts to continue hearing part-heard criminal cases during the annual court break.
In a letter dated August 10, 2026, and signed by its National President, Efua Ghartey, the GBA said it had received petitions from the law firms of Zoe, Akyea & Co, Dame & Partners, and Sam Okudzeto & Associates, expressing dissatisfaction with notices served on them as a result of warrants issued to specific judges to continue hearing part-heard criminal cases during the legal vacation.
The Association noted that the concerns emerged shortly after the conclusion of activities marking the 150th anniversary of the Supreme Court Ordinance of 1876, which culminated on July 31, 2026.
According to the GBA, the legal vacation is clearly provided for under the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), which stipulate that the second vacation of the legal year runs from August 1 to September 30.
The Association explained that the period was intentionally created to allow judges, lawyers and judicial staff time to recover from the demands of the court calendar, particularly after the second term, which is the longest in the legal year.
While acknowledging that some courts are designated as vacation courts to deal with emergencies during the break, the GBA stressed that such courts traditionally handle only urgent interlocutory matters and not trials.
The Association further stated that virtual courts operating during the vacation period follow the same practice.
The GBA emphasized that the longstanding principle governing vacation courts has always been the voluntary availability of lawyers.
“Counsel are not under any compulsion whatsoever to appear before a Vacation Court,” the association stated.
It added that where lawyers indicate they are unavailable during the vacation period, courts should not proceed with the matter.
“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, if Counsel on either side or on both sides indicate their inability to proceed with the scheduled matter in Court during the vacation,” the letter said.
The Association also argued that litigants should not be compelled to represent themselves because their lawyers are absent during a legally recognized vacation period.
“Innocent parties in a trial, civil or criminal ought not be coerced by a Judge to represent themselves as the absence of a Lawyer is not considered willful during a Legal Vacation,” the GBA said.
The Association warned that any attempt to proceed with cases despite the unavailability of counsel could create perceptions of unfairness.
“It is in respect of this time-honored tradition that we write, as any attempt to do otherwise, with or without a warrant will smack of bias or selective justice,” the letter noted.
The GBA further highlighted the increasing workload on legal practitioners, including the recent introduction of afternoon court sittings, and said many lawyers had already scheduled holidays, conferences and professional commitments outside the jurisdiction during the vacation period.
“Respectfully My Lord, the Lawyers are personally responsible for their well being and they have to maintain a healthy work-life balance. Duly earned vacations must therefore, not be tampered with,” the association stated.
Reaffirming its commitment to supporting the efficient administration of justice, the GBA said it remained confident that the Judiciary would uphold both the Rules of Court and the long-established traditions governing legal vacations.
“In light of the above, we are confident that the said petitions will be considered favourably,” the association concluded.
