The President of the Young Lawyers Forum of the Ghana Bar Association (GBA), Noah Ephraem Adamtey Tetteh, has challenged the position that vacation courts are restricted to interlocutory matters, motions and emergency applications.

According to him, the practice of law does not support the argument that vacation courts cannot deal with matters that go to the substance of a case.

Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Tuesday, Mr Tetteh said the distinction between substantive and procedural matters is not always clear-cut.

“I find that position quite problematic, and I think that kind of position does not really adhere to, in my view, what we see with the practice of law that I have witnessed in my few years at the bar, and also with the law itself,” he said.

He explained that some applications filed during court vacation can effectively determine the outcome of a case.

“I have heard that argument that when we think of what we do during vacation, we don’t go into the substance of the matter, but that is never the case because how do you even distinguish between what is the substance of the matter and what is not?” he asked.

Mr Tetteh said he had appeared before vacation courts where parties filed applications that could bring cases to an end.

“I have been before vacation courts, and I am sure my seniors here might have seen similar instances where parties have filed motions that terminate the case,” he said.

He cited summary judgment applications as an example.

“When a party is filing a summary judgment, you can’t term that as just a procedural or a motion that does not go to the substantive heart of the case,” he said.

He also pointed to judgment on admission applications, saying such applications can have a decisive effect on proceedings.

“When someone files a motion or notice for judgment on admission, for instance, that is not a merely procedural matter. That brings the matter to a close,” he said.

Mr Tetteh therefore rejected the suggestion that vacation courts are incapable of dealing with substantive issues.

“And so it is very problematic when we say the vacation courts do not go into the substance of the matter or do not go into trial,” he said.

His comments come amid debate over the Chief Justice’s directive concerning the continued hearing of selected cases, including the case involving former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahen and others.

The issue has generated disagreement over the scope of the Chief Justice’s authority and the role of vacation courts.

Mr Tetteh said it is important to separate the question of what the Chief Justice directed from the independence of judges in exercising judicial power.

“We must distinguish between two important issues here. One is whether the Chief Justice’s warrant was ordering the courts to do specific things,” he said.

Responding to whether the directive specifically required the case involving Adu-Boahen and others to be heard, he said the Chief Justice has the authority to identify cases that should be heard.

“That is the point I’m actually driving at. The Chief Justice asked the judge in hearing those cases to do specific acts, but that would then be the Chief Justice taking away the individual or independence in the exercise of judicial power by judges,” he said.

He, however, disagreed that this was what the Chief Justice was doing.

“That is not what I see the Chief Justice doing. Chief Justice has the power under our law to specifically the state that certain cases must be heard. We should not lose track of that,” he said.