Godfred Yeboah Dame, lead counsel for former National Food Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO) Chief Executive Officer Hanan Abdul-Hamid, says his client cannot be compelled to proceed with his trial during the legal vacation without legal representation, warning that such a move would set a dangerous precedent.

His comments come days after Justice Francis Apangabonu Achibonga, a Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting as an additional High Court judge, directed former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau (NSB), Kwabena Adu-Boahene, and his wife, Angela Adjei Boateng, to secure the presence of their lawyers ahead of the continuation of their trial on August 17.

The court warned that if the couple failed to appear with legal representation on the next adjourned date, they would be required to personally continue the cross-examination of the fourth prosecution witness. The court further indicated that if they failed to conduct the cross-examination themselves, the witness would be discharged.

Speaking to journalists after court proceedings on Monday, Mr Dame said he doubted that Hanan Abdul-Hamid would be compelled to represent himself because the next hearing was expected to focus on an application seeking to halt proceedings pending the determination of a motion filed at the Court of Appeal.

"I have my doubts that that will happen because next week, what is for consideration is whether the stipulations we have filed at the Court of Appeal should hold the hands of the court," he said.

However, he maintained that he would not participate in proceedings conducted during the legal vacation.

"In any event, I'm saying that there cannot be a trial in the vacation. If the court indeed wants to order my client to conduct the case by himself, so be it," he stated.

The former Attorney General argued that compelling an accused person to proceed without legal representation would undermine a fundamental constitutional right.

"We'll see the kind of dangerous precedent that would set in this country. A party has a right to legal representation, to counsel of his choice, and that right is constitutional. It cannot be taken away from a person just by the stroke of the pen of any person," he added.

Mr Dame has consistently opposed the decision to hear the case during the legal vacation, arguing that criminal trials should not be conducted during that period except under exceptional circumstances.

He has also questioned the urgency surrounding the case, insisting that there is no emergency that justifies proceedings during the vacation.

The disagreement over the scheduling of the trial has reignited debate over judicial discretion, legal representation and the conduct of criminal proceedings during the court's vacation period.