Lawyer for former National Signals Bureau (NSB) boss Kwabena Adu-Boahene, Samuel Atta Akyea, has questioned why the Chief Justice has directed that his client’s case and another high-profile criminal case be given expedited hearing.

Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Tuesday, Mr Atta Akyea described the directive as selective justice, arguing that several other serious criminal cases remain pending before the courts.

“I keep asking this selective justice is the Chief Justice trying to force on us?” he asked.

“All the murder cases, all the man-slaughter cases, all the rape cases and other criminal cases, that have happened does not have consequence at all.”

His comments come amid the decision to fast-track the trial involving Mr Adu-Boahene, who is facing charges in connection with alleged financial and other offences linked to his tenure at the NSB.

Mr Atta Akyea questioned why the Chief Justice would issue a directive requiring judges handling selected cases to prioritise them, while other cases continue to await hearing.

“I ask this question: Why should the Chief Justice give a warrant to judges who have heard part of some special cases, and say that those special cases they should go for trial?” he said.

He argued that such directives could interfere with established court procedures, including the availability of lawyers who may have other professional commitments.

“So part-heard cases should continue, and these are without the reference to the programs of the lawyers, whether the lawyers who go abroad to do some good medication, or the lawyers who go to the national bar conference, or the lawyers who travel whatever,” he said.

Mr Atta Akyea was particularly critical of the decision to prioritise what he described as “these two cases”.

“But these two cases, which a lot of people are talking about, how it is so important to somebody somewhere should be put together, and then the judge should continue,” he said.

He maintained that he would not allow the expedited hearing directive to override established legal traditions and statutory provisions.

“So I believe that I’ve come far. I’m not a little boy in the game for me to use one case to cancel the traditions, the practices, and the statutory provisions of Ghana,” he said.

The lawyer also rejected suggestions that junior lawyers in his chamber could represent Mr Adu-Boahene in the case if he is unavailable.

“Well, the case is not for junior lawyers to handle. If you see what is going on in the realm, you know,” he said.

He insisted that his experience was necessary because of the nature of the case and the national security issues he believes it raises.

“I mean to come to terms with a case that since Guggisberg time or the Gold Coast, a national security matter has never been a subject matter of an open trial,” he said.

He further argued that the case presented an unprecedented challenge because of the implications for national security.

“You think it’s a small case that we are doing-a dangerous president that, because of one man, let’s cancel the whole of the submarine tactics of national security and put national security on trial,” he said.

Mr Atta Akyea said he therefore could not hand over the case to another lawyer.

“I don’t think a genius, I mean, will be able to face such an unprecedented, I mean, case coming from the Attorney General, so I couldn’t cede space to Agenia to go and do this job for my client. With all respect,” he said.