Legal Vacations and Trials: Why Deputy Attorney-General Says GBA President Is in Error

Date: August 11, 2026
By: Ebenezer Adugyamfi/ Emmanuel Ayiku for GhanaianNewsCanada

A fresh legal debate has emerged in Ghana over the scope and purpose of the country’s legal vacation, with Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Dr Justice Srem-Sai challenging the position taken by the President of the Ghana Bar Association (GBA).

The disagreement centres on a fundamental question concerning the administration of justice: Can a Vacation Court hear substantive matters and conduct trials during the legal vacation, and who ultimately determines whether such proceedings should take place?

Dr Srem-Sai has argued that the answer is yes, maintaining that legal vacation does not automatically prevent courts from dealing with substantive cases. He has also rejected the suggestion that the willingness or availability of lawyers should be the determining factor in deciding whether a case proceeds before a Vacation Court.

His comments follow a letter from the President of the Ghana Bar Association to the Chief Justice dated August 10, 2026, in which the GBA President reportedly made two key claims regarding proceedings during legal vacation.

The GBA President’s position

According to Dr Srem-Sai’s account of the letter, the GBA President argued that a Vacation Judge does not ordinarily take proceedings on the substance of a case or conduct trials during the legal vacation.

The second position was that the decision to take substantive proceedings during the vacation largely depends on the willingness and availability of counsel representing the parties.

In other words, lawyers should not be compelled to appear before a Vacation Court for proceedings during the legal vacation.

Dr Srem-Sai has strongly disputed both propositions, arguing that neither is supported by the law, the applicable rules or established judicial practice.

The Deputy Attorney-General’s response has therefore opened a significant discussion about the balance between the convenience of legal practitioners and the constitutional responsibility of courts to administer justice.

Legal vacation is not necessarily a complete shutdown

Ghana’s legal vacation traditionally runs from August 1 to September 30.

The existence of a legal vacation, however, does not mean that the entire judicial system stops functioning for two months.

Vacation arrangements are intended to regulate the scheduling of court business and allow judges and lawyers some respite from the ordinary demands of the legal year while ensuring that urgent and necessary judicial work can continue.

Vacation Courts exist precisely to deal with matters that require judicial attention during this period.

Dr Srem-Sai’s argument is that the existence of a Vacation Court would serve little purpose if the court were automatically prevented from dealing with substantive matters simply because the legal calendar is in vacation.

Who decides whether a case proceeds?

One of the most important aspects of the dispute concerns who has the ultimate authority to determine whether a matter should proceed before a Vacation Court.

According to Dr Srem-Sai, that authority belongs to the bench, not the lawyers.

His position is that while the availability of counsel can obviously be a practical consideration, it should not become a legal veto over the court’s ability to hear a matter.

This distinction is particularly important in cases where the public interest, constitutional rights, criminal proceedings or other urgent issues may require the court to act without waiting for the end of the legal vacation.

The Deputy Attorney-General therefore argues that lawyers may request accommodation or raise legitimate scheduling concerns, but they cannot unilaterally determine that a court should not sit.

The difference between legal vacation and a lawyers’ vacation

At the heart of the controversy is the distinction between a legal vacation and what could be described as a complete vacation for lawyers and the courts.

Dr Srem-Sai has stressed that legal vacation does not amount to a suspension of the judicial function.

Courts remain institutions of the state, and judges retain their constitutional and statutory responsibilities even during the vacation period.

The existence of a vacation calendar is therefore primarily an administrative and scheduling arrangement rather than a declaration that judicial proceedings have ceased.

This interpretation, if accepted, would mean that the appropriate question in each case is whether the matter should be heard during the vacation, rather than whether the court has jurisdiction to deal with substantive proceedings at all.

Why the issue matters

Although the disagreement may appear technical, its implications extend beyond the legal profession.

The timing of court proceedings can have consequences for accused persons, plaintiffs, defendants, government agencies and other parties who depend on the judicial system for timely resolution of disputes.

If substantive cases could not proceed during legal vacation, parties involved in important litigation might have to wait several additional weeks before their matters could be addressed.

That could potentially contribute to delays in the justice system, particularly in a country where concerns about case backlogs and the speed of judicial proceedings have been raised over the years.

On the other hand, lawyers have legitimate concerns about professional workload, personal commitments and the ability to prepare adequately for proceedings scheduled during vacation.

The challenge is therefore to strike a balance between efficient justice delivery and reasonable accommodation for legal practitioners.

The role of the judge

Dr Srem-Sai’s position places considerable emphasis on the authority of the judge.

Under his interpretation, once a matter is properly before a Vacation Court, it is the court that determines how the proceedings should be managed.

Counsel can make representations to the court, seek an adjournment where appropriate or explain why they may be unable to proceed. But the final decision remains with the judge.

This principle, according to the Deputy Attorney-General, protects the independence and authority of the judiciary.

It also prevents any situation in which lawyers could effectively determine whether a court is able to perform its judicial function.

A wider debate about access to justice

The controversy also raises a broader question about access to justice.

For ordinary citizens, court proceedings can already be expensive and time-consuming. Delays can increase legal costs and prolong disputes that may have significant consequences for individuals, families, businesses and public institutions.

Ensuring that courts can function when necessary during legal vacation could therefore contribute to more efficient justice delivery.

At the same time, proper safeguards are necessary to ensure that parties are given adequate notice and that lawyers have sufficient opportunity to prepare their cases.

The debate is therefore not simply about whether courts should sit during vacation. It is also about how proceedings should be organized so that both judicial efficiency and fairness are protected.

The Chief Justice now at the Centre of the issue

With the GBA President’s letter addressed to the Chief Justice and the Deputy Attorney-General publicly challenging the position contained in it, attention is now likely to turn to the judiciary.

The Chief Justice and the Judicial Service may ultimately have to provide clarity on the practical operation of Vacation Courts and the extent to which substantive proceedings can be conducted during the legal vacation.

Such clarification could help prevent uncertainty among judges, lawyers and litigants and establish a clearer framework for handling cases between August 1 and September 30.

A debate over judicial administration

The disagreement between the Deputy Attorney-General and the leadership of the Ghana Bar Association highlights the fact that the administration of justice depends not only on laws and court judgments but also on practical rules governing how cases are scheduled and conducted.

Dr Srem-Sai’s argument is that the judiciary must retain the authority to determine when a case should proceed, while the GBA’s position, as described in his response, places greater emphasis on the availability and willingness of counsel during the vacation period.

Both positions touch on important principles: the independence and authority of the courts on one hand, and the practical working conditions of legal practitioners on the other.

As Ghana’s legal community continues to debate the matter, the key question will be how the country’s judicial system can maintain access to justice without unnecessarily overburdening judges, lawyers or litigants.

For now, Dr Justice Srem-Sai has made his position clear: legal vacation does not suspend the court’s ability to conduct substantive proceedings, and lawyers cannot by themselves determine whether a Vacation Court should hear a case.