Former Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame has criticised the decision to hear proceedings involving former National Food Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO) Chief Executive Officer Hanan Abdul-Hamid during the legal vacation, arguing that there is no urgency to justify the court's action.

Speaking to journalists after proceedings on Monday, August 17, Mr Dame, who is representing Abdul-Hamid, maintained that compelling parties to participate in a trial during the legal vacation goes against long-standing judicial practice.

"It has never happened before, so why should it happen now?" he asked.

Questioning the basis for the court's decision, Mr Dame said there was no emergency that required the matter to be heard during the vacation period.

"What was the basis for the urgency? There's no emergency about this matter," he said.

He explained that, throughout his legal career, the only instances in which courts sat during the legal vacation involved urgent election-related matters.

Recalling a case involving the Electoral Commission in 2012, which he handled alongside a former Attorney General, he said the Supreme Court heard an application for an interlocutory injunction during the vacation because of the proximity of the general election.

He noted, however, that the substantive case was subsequently adjourned until October.

Mr Dame further argued that applications for a stay of proceedings are neither unusual nor unprecedented.

He cited previous cases, including matters involving the National Communications Authority, in which courts suspended proceedings while related applications were being considered.

"The application we make regarding the stay of proceedings is one that is not new," he said.

He also criticised the decision to schedule the hearing without the consent of the parties involved.

Mr Dame maintained that even during his tenure as Attorney General, he followed established procedures whenever he sought to have cases expedited.

He said he would formally petition the courts rather than seek to have matters scheduled during the legal vacation without consulting the parties involved.

He argued that judicial traditions and established conventions should be upheld to ensure fairness.

"It cannot be that there can be one set of rules for one set of people and another set of rules for a different set of people," he said.

The former Attorney General described the decision to proceed with the case during the legal vacation as inappropriate, arguing that it had created unnecessary controversy.

Read also: Accra High court halts Buffer Stock trial pending Supreme Court ruling on vacation sittings

This comes at a time whe the Accra High Court has suspended proceedings in the criminal trial of Hanan Abdul-Wahab and his wife, Faiza Seidu Wuni, pending the determination of an injunction application before the Supreme Court challenging the conduct of trials during the legal vacation.

The suspension follows a broader legal challenge mounted by defence lawyers against the Chief Justice's directive allowing selected criminal trials to proceed during the judiciary's legal vacation. Defence counsel for both Hanan Abdul-Wahab and Kwabena Adu-Boahene had petitioned Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, arguing that the directive departs from established court practice and is inconsistent with the Constitution.

The lawyers contend that High Court judges permitted to sit during the vacation are traditionally expected to handle only motions and interlocutory matters, not substantive criminal trials.