President of the Young Lawyers Forum of the Ghana Bar Association, Noah Ephraem Adamtey Tetteh, has defended the Chief Justice’s authority to direct that specific cases be heard, rejecting arguments that vacation courts are limited strictly to interlocutory matters and emergency applications.

Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Tuesday, Mr Tetteh said such a position does not reflect either legal practice or the law as he has experienced it at the Bar.

“I find that position quite problematic, and I think that kind of position does not really adhere to, in my view, what we see with the practice of law that I have witnessed in my few years at the bar, and also with the law itself,” he said.

His comments come amid a debate over the Chief Justice’s directive for certain cases, including the trial involving former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and others, to proceed during the legal vacation.

The Ghana Bar Association has argued that vacation courts traditionally deal with interlocutory matters, motions and emergency applications rather than trials.

But Mr Tetteh said the distinction between substantive and procedural matters is not always straightforward.

“I have heard that argument that when we think of what we do during vacation, we don’t go into the substance of the matter, but that is never the case because how do you even distinguish between what is the substance of the matter and what is not?” he asked.

He cited summary judgment applications as an example of matters that can arise during vacation but have a direct impact on the substance of a case.

“I have been before vacation courts, and I am sure my seniors here might have seen similar instances where parties have filed motions that terminate the case,” he said.

“For example, when a party is filing a summary judgment, you can’t term that as just a procedural or a motion that does not go to the substantive heart of the case.”

He made a similar argument about applications for judgment on admission.

“When someone files a motion or notice for judgment on admission, for instance, that is not a merely procedural matter. That brings the matter to a close,” he said.

Mr Tetteh said the debate should therefore focus on two separate issues, including whether the Chief Justice’s warrant directed judges to perform specific acts.

“We must distinguish between two important issues here. One is whether the Chief Justice’s warrant was ordering the courts to do specific things,” he said.

Asked whether the directive specifically meant that the Adu-Boahene case must be heard, Mr Tetteh said that was precisely the point he was making.

“That is the point I’m actually driving at. The Chief Justice asked the judge in hearing those cases to do specific acts,” he said.

He, however, rejected the suggestion that such a directive amounted to an interference with judicial independence.

“But that would then be the Chief Justice taking away the individual or independence in the exercise of judicial power by judges. That is not what I see the Chief Justice doing,” he said.

According to Mr Tetteh, the Chief Justice has the legal authority to determine that particular cases should be heard.

“Chief Justice has the power under our law to specifically state that certain cases must be heard. We should not lose track of that,” he said.