Lawyer for the Member of Parliament for Ofoase-Ayirebi, Frank Davies, has questioned the decision to adjourn Chairman Wontumi’s bail application pending appeal to October 15.

Mr Davies argued that the application, being an urgent matter involving bail, could have been heard during the legal vacation in August or September rather than being pushed to October.

Speaking after Thursday’s proceedings at the Supreme Court, he said the purpose of vacation courts was to deal with urgent and critical applications, including bail matters.

Chairman Wontumi, whose real name is Bernard Antwi Boasiako, is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence imposed by the Accra High Court after his conviction on illegal-mining-related offences. His lawyers have appealed the conviction and sentence and subsequently applied for bail pending the determination of the appeal.

The bail application was expected to be heard on August 19, 2026, but the matter could not proceed after Wontumi and his lead counsel, Samuel Atta Akyea, were absent from court. The court subsequently adjourned the application to October 15

“If you have a serious application like bail, pending appeal, a bail, it should be—that is the essence of the vacation court—to deal with such applications,” he said.

Mr Davies questioned why the case could not have been adjourned to an earlier date if the judge was unavailable when the matter was scheduled to be heard.

He noted that August 19 was the date in question and said that, even if the judge was indisposed, the matter could have been rescheduled for the following week or sometime in September.

“If she were indisposed, may God grant her health and speedy recovery as such. Why was the case adjourned to the following week? Or even to September?” he asked.

Mr Davies expressed concern over the decision to set the next hearing for October 15, arguing that the application could have been accommodated within the vacation period.

“Why did she adjourn to October? When could she have adjourned to maybe two weeks, in August or in September? Why?” he questioned.

He further raised questions about whether all accused persons were being treated equally in the scheduling of urgent applications.

“Are there two different sets of rights in this country? Superior rights and lesser rights?” he asked.

Mr Davies also maintained that criminal trials conducted during the legal vacation generally proceed with the consent of the parties and their lawyers.

“On vacation, you only deal with interim applications and urgent and critical matters,” he said.

He argued that the handling of cases during the vacation should therefore be guided by the need to address matters requiring urgent judicial attention.

His comments come amid wider debate over the conduct of court proceedings during the legal vacation and the circumstances under which selected criminal cases are being heard during the period.