Every year from 1 August to 30 September, Ghana’s superior courts enter what is known as the long legal vacation. This period is meant to give judges, lawyers, and judicial staff a much-needed break after the demanding legal calendar. In 2026, however, the vacation has become the centre of a heated national debate involving the Ghana Bar Association (GBA), the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General’s office, and several high-profile lawyers.
At the heart of the dispute is a simple but fundamental question: Does the legal vacation mean courts largely shut down, or do they merely scale down while continuing essential work including substantive trials?
The legal vacation is not an informal tradition. It is provided for under Order 79 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47).
- Rule 4 sets out the three annual vacations, with the longest running from 1 August to the last day of September.
- Importantly, Rule 1(1) makes the vacation schedule subject to the power of the Chief Justice to appoint any day including days within the vacation for the hearing of causes or matters “as circumstances require.”
This means the Chief Justice has clear legal authority to designate judges to sit during the vacation period. The question is how far that authority should be exercised and what kinds of cases those judges should hear.
On or around 10 August 2026, the Ghana Bar Association wrote to Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie. The Association raised concerns after several law firms — including Zoe, Akyea & Co, Dame & Partners, and Sam Okudzeto & Associates — received notices requiring their lawyers to appear in court for part-heard criminal cases during the vacation.
The GBA argued that:
- The vacation is intended to give lawyers, judges, and staff a period of genuine rest.
- Lawyers who have already indicated their unavailability should not be compelled to attend.
- Vacation courts have traditionally focused on urgent and interlocutory matters (bail, injunctions, and other time-sensitive applications) rather than full substantive trials.
Several senior lawyers have publicly supported this view. Legal practitioner and broadcaster Samson Lardy Anyenini described the GBA’s stance as grounded in both the rules and long-standing judicial convention. Former Gomoa West MP and lawyer Alexander Abban went further, arguing that the Chief Justice’s discretion must be exercised within constitutional limits (particularly Article 296) and that continuing non-urgent substantive trials during vacation risks appearing arbitrary.
 |
| Chief Justice |
Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie has firmly rejected the idea that lawyers can unilaterally halt proceedings because of the vacation. Speaking at a Judicial Service event in Sunyani, he stated that a judge who is sitting and ready to hear a case cannot be prevented from doing so simply because counsel has made other personal arrangements. Lawyers, he said, may take leave only with their clients’ permission.
Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai has been even more direct. In public statements and a detailed written response, he has argued that:
- The legal vacation is not a “lawyers’ vacation.”
- Courts do not shut down; they scale down significantly.
- Vacation judges are fully empowered to hear both interlocutory and substantive matters in cases from their own courts.
- Claims of selective justice are “completely false,” noting that 26 judges have been assigned vacation duties across the country.
 |
| Deputy Attorney General |
As of 12 August 2026, the Judicial Service has confirmed that 26 judges including two Court of Appeal judges sitting as additional High Court judges are currently on vacation duty. Their warrants authorize them to continue pending substantive cases, not merely emergency applications.
The controversy has taken on political undertones. Some of the cases continuing during the vacation involve high-profile or politically sensitive matters. Opposition voices and certain lawyers have suggested that the continued sittings raise questions about fairness and the appearance of selective justice. Government-aligned voices counter that the real issue is an attempt by some lawyers to delay cases under the cover of vacation.
As of mid-August 2026, the legal vacation remains in force, but designated vacation courts continue to sit. Lawyers who face genuine difficulties attending are advised to apply formally for adjournments rather than simply declining to appear. The GBA’s concerns have not led to a blanket suspension of proceedings, and the Chief Justice and Deputy Attorney-General show no sign of reversing course.
Comments
Post a Comment