Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie has rejected the position that lawyers can decline to proceed with cases simply because they have been scheduled during the legal vacation.

He said a judge who is sitting and ready to hear a case cannot be prevented from doing so merely because counsel has made personal arrangements during the vacation period.

Speaking at the 2nd Quadrennial Delegates Congress of the Senior Staff Association of the Judicial Service of Ghana in Sunyani in the Bono Region, the Chief Justice said lawyers could take leave only where their clients permitted them to do so.

“You cannot say that there is legal vacation, so a judge who is actually sitting and ready to do your case cannot do it. No, that’s not it,” he said.

Read Also: Legal vacation is not lawyers’ vacation — Deputy Attorney-General

Justice Baffoe-Bonnie criticised the suggestion that a lawyer could simply inform the Chief Justice that a case should not proceed because counsel had already made other arrangements.

“To write to the Chief Justice to say that the cases should not be adjourned to the vacation, so I am not coming, I have already made arrangements outside, so I am not coming.

“You are a lawyer, you have your clients. If your clients decide to give you leave, well, go on leave, but you cannot say that there is a legal vacation and the judge who is actually sitting cannot do your case. No, that is not it,” he stated.

The Chief Justice also stressed that decisions on adjournments are made by judges handling the cases and do not fall within the administrative authority of the Chief Justice.

“No, adjournments are not at the instance of the Chief Justice. Adjournment is a judicial act. This is something that is so basic,” he said.

His comments follow a letter from the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) appealing to the Chief Justice over concerns about lawyers being required to appear in court during the legal vacation.

In the letter dated August 10, 2026, the GBA argued that lawyers who had indicated their unavailability during the period should not be compelled to attend proceedings.

The Association said it was responding to petitions from Zoe, Akyea & Co, Dame & Partners, and Sam Okudzeto & Associates over notices requiring counsel to appear before judges designated to continue part-heard criminal cases during the vacation.

Read Also: Court cannot proceed if counsel is unavailable during legal vacation – GBA to Chief Justice

The GBA explained that under the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, CI 47, particularly Order 79, Rule 4, the High Court observes three vacations annually, with the second and longest running from August 1 to September 30.

It said the period is intended to provide lawyers, judges and judicial staff with a break after the second term of the legal calendar.

While acknowledging that Vacation Courts and Virtual Courts may handle urgent matters, including interlocutory applications, the GBA maintained that trials are ordinarily not conducted during the period.

It further argued that the willingness and availability of counsel should remain a key consideration in determining whether a matter proceeds.

“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,” the GBA stated.

The Association also argued that parties in civil and criminal cases should not be compelled to represent themselves where their lawyers are absent during the legal vacation.

The controversy has triggered a broader debate over the scope of court proceedings during the vacation period.

Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Dr Justice Srem-Sai has also maintained that the decision on whether proceedings should continue rests with the court rather than counsel.