Deputy Attorney General Dr Justice Srem-Sai has rejected claims that criminal trials should not be conducted during the legal vacation without the consent of lawyers involved in the cases.

He argues that allowing lawyers to determine how and when cases are heard would undermine the very purpose of the judiciary.

Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Monday, Justice Srem-Sai said the interpretation being advanced by sections of the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) on vacation courts is not workable.

He explained that a vacation judge is still entitled to take a vacation after serving during the legal break.

A judge assigned to a vacation court may also have their own cases to handle. The Chief Justice can also assign cases from other courts to that judge when urgent matters require attention.

According to Justice Srem-Sai, the judge handles the merits of cases from their own court but deals only with motions and urgent matters from courts attached to the vacation court.

He said applying the GBA’s interpretation strictly would mean a judge could be unable to hear cases for months.

“So, if you apply the GBA interpretation, what it means is that then this judge will not be able to hear any case until January next year, because then when the others come, he goes on vacation, and another judge cannot hear his cases. So, it’s bizarre,” he said.

Justice Srem-Sai also disputed claims that superior courts do not conduct trials during the legal vacation.

He pointed to media reports and cases identified by lawyers as evidence that trials have been conducted during previous vacations.

He cited the Takoradi Girls case as one such example.

“One of our attorneys just, you know, were going through our files, and reminded us that even the Takoradi Girls case, said it was conducted during the legal vacation. I didn’t even know, was conducted during the legal vacation, even amid protests from defence counsel,” he said.

The Deputy Attorney General further rejected the suggestion that lawyers must agree before a case can proceed during the legal vacation.

“It is also not true that before a judge will conduct a case during the vacation, the lawyers must agree,” he said.

He argued that lawyers on opposing sides will often have different interests in the pace of a trial.

“What it means is that now lawyers are deciding how cases should be conducted, which is never the essence of establishing a judiciary,” he said.

Justice Srem-Sai acknowledged that there can be strategic reasons for a defence lawyer to favour a slower trial.

He explained that evidence can deteriorate, memories can fade, and witnesses may die over time.

However, he maintained that the Constitution requires trials to be conducted speedily.

“I want it fast, and I want it fast because the law, the Constitution, demands that we conduct trials fast, quickly, speedily. It’s a constitutional provision,” he said.

He cited Article 19(1), which provides for a fair and speedy trial without delay.

Justice Srem-Sai also rejected suggestions that his push for speedy trials is driven by partisan considerations.

He admitted that the interests of the governing NDC could align with the constitutional requirement for speedy trials.

“Two things can coincide. Okay. So, the interest of my political party, the NDC, can be equal to the interest of the constitution,” he said.

He, however, insisted that allegations of manipulating the legal vacation to secure convictions must be supported by evidence.

“If you say by being fast, being fast alone doesn’t mean that you are perverting the course of justice,” he said.

He further argued that the use of vacation courts is not limited to the high-profile cases currently attracting attention.

He said other cases continue to remain stalled because their assigned judges are on vacation.

“If it were something that we are trying to manipulate and we have the power to do, then it’s possible, then we should. I don’t see why we should allow other cases like SSNIT and others to go on vacation,” he said.

The dispute comes amid growing debate over the scope of vacation courts and whether substantive trials can be conducted during the legal vacation.

Justice Srem-Sai’s position is that vacation courts are an established part of the judicial system and that judges must retain control over the conduct and pace of proceedings, rather than leaving such decisions to lawyers.