Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Justice Srem-Sai, has rejected allegations of selective justice in the Chief Justice’s decision to direct selected courts to sit during the legal vacation.

He described the allegation as “completely false”, insisting that several judges across the country have been designated as vacation judges and are currently conducting cases.

“It is completely false. There are so many judges that are doing vacation court and there are other cases that we are conducting oral cases which are not in the vacation because their judges in those courts have not been appointed as vacation court and they’ve vacated,” he said.

“So it is a false allegation they are making.”

His comments come amid a growing dispute between the judiciary and the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) over the conduct of court proceedings during the legal vacation, which runs from August 1 to September 30.

Justice Srem-Sai maintained that lawyers who have legitimate difficulties appearing during the vacation are not without recourse.

He said counsel who cannot attend a particular sitting should appear before the court, explain the circumstances and formally seek an adjournment.

“If a lawyer has a challenge which will prevent him from conducting a case on any day, what you do is to come to court and tell the court your reason, and the court will understand and grant you adjournment,” he explained.

He rejected the suggestion that lawyers can simply decline to practise because the courts are on vacation.

“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 added.

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.

“As far as we are concerned, there is no controversy on this matter. It is just an attempt to, as usual, delay cases,” he said.

Justice Srem-Sai pointed to what he described as a recurring pattern in some of the cases affected by the directive.

“Look, what we are doing — these cases — you will notice that it’s always a fight taking dates. Every day there’s one excuse or the other whenever we want to take adjournment. This is part of the same trick,” he said.

His comments come against the backdrop of the GBA’s position that Vacation Courts have traditionally been limited largely 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.

Justice Srem-Sai has rejected that interpretation, insisting that the authority to determine when courts sit rests with the judiciary and not the legal profession.

The disagreement has intensified following the Chief Justice’s warrant directing selected courts and judges to continue hearing certain cases during the current 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 conduct proceedings during the period.

The issue has particular significance for several high-profile criminal cases whose proceedings have been scheduled during the vacation.

Justice Srem-Sai said the Chief Justice’s warrant remains in force and the designated courts are expected to continue with their work.

He also warned that lawyers who deliberately fail to appear could leave their clients without legal representation during proceedings.

In some of the affected 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.