Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Justice Srem-Sai, has rejected the Ghana Bar Association’s position on proceedings during the legal vacation, insisting that lawyers have no legal basis to decide whether cases should be heard before Vacation Courts.

He described the GBA’s position as “completely wrong”, arguing that it is unsupported by law, fact, reason or established rules of court practice.

Justice Srem-Sai was responding to concerns raised by the GBA over directives requiring lawyers to appear before judges sitting during the current legal vacation.

“There is no genuine or real controversy here,” he said. “The matter is simple. It’s been the case that vacation courts are always sitting whenever there’s a legal vacation. No one can dispute that simple fact.”

The dispute follows a letter dated August 10, 2026, signed by GBA President Efua Ghartey and National Secretary Kwaku Gyau Baffour.

The letter responded to petitions from the law firms Zoe, Akyea & Co, Dame & Partners, and Sam Okudzeto & Associates, which raised concerns over directives requiring them to appear before judges during the legal vacation.

The GBA cited Order 79, Rule 4 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, CI 47, which provides for three annual legal vacations, including the longest vacation from August 1 to September 30.

The association maintained that Vacation Courts traditionally deal with emergencies and interlocutory matters rather than trials.

It also argued that the willingness and availability of counsel have traditionally been an important consideration in determining whether proceedings should take place during the vacation.

Justice Srem-Sai, however, disagrees.

According to the Deputy Attorney-General, the Chief Justice has issued warrants authorising about 10 or more judges across the country to sit during the legal vacation and deal with pending cases.

He said those judges retain the authority to administer their courts and hear cases during the vacation period.

“The claim that it is the lawyers who decide whether they want to have proceedings in vacation is not founded on any fact, is not founded on any law, is not founded on reason, and it is not founded by any rule of practice,” he said.

“Lawyers nowhere in the world — you see lawyers telling when a court should sit.”

Justice Srem-Sai said accepting the GBA’s interpretation could create significant delays in the administration of justice.

He explained that judges assigned to Vacation Courts would ordinarily take their own leave after the legal vacation ends, potentially creating further periods during which trials could not proceed.

“If you make the argument as the GBA president is making that a vacation judge is not required to or cannot hear cases or conduct trial, then when the vacation is over and he goes on vacation, no other judge can have trial,” he said.

He argued that such an interpretation could mean some cases would not resume until January 2027.

“Basically what the GBA is saying is that for cases that are pending in the courts that have vacation judges, those cases can only conduct trials in January next year,” he added.

Justice Srem-Sai also rejected the GBA’s assertion that there is an established convention limiting the nature of proceedings that may be conducted during the legal vacation.

“The claim that there is a convention is completely false. There’s no such convention,” he said.

He argued that the relevant legal framework is Order 79 of CI 47, which expressly provides for legal vacation.

The Deputy Attorney-General described the GBA’s interpretation as a “self-imposed understanding of the law” that should not be allowed to determine the administration of cases before the courts.

Justice Srem-Sai further warned that lawyers who refuse to appear before Vacation Courts could expose their clients to serious consequences.

He said judges who have been authorised to sit during the vacation are entitled to proceed with cases even when counsel fails to appear.

“As the judge said, he has a warrant to hear the case and sit in vacation. And if you don’t come, he will treat it as if you are not interested in legal representation,” he said.

According to him, affected clients have been given the opportunity to secure alternative legal representation if their lawyers decline to participate.

He said where a lawyer fails to appear at the next adjourned date, the court could require the client to proceed without counsel.

“If their lawyers decide that they won’t practice, no one can stop them, but he has a case to defend,” he said.

“If on the next adjourn date, he does not produce a lawyer — the judge has given them one week. If they do not produce a lawyer, then they will have to conduct the cross-examination by themselves.”