Srem-Sai challenges GBA stance on legal vacation court sittings

Dr Justice Srem-Sai has disputed the Ghana Bar Association's (GBA) claim that lawyers can unilaterally refuse to appear before vacation courts. In his response titled "Legal Vacations and Trials: Why the GBA President Is in Error," Dr Srem-Sai argued that the GBA's position lacks legal or procedural basis. He emphasized that the authority to control court proceedings lies with the presiding judge, not the lawyers.

According to Dr Srem-Sai, the annual legal vacation is a reduction in the judiciary's workload rather than a suspension of justice. If a lawyer is unable to attend court during the recess, they should formally apply to the presiding judge for an adjournment on a case-by-case basis. The dispute stems from Chief Justice Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie's directive to allow selected courts to continue hearing cases during the August–September legal vacation, especially high-profile criminal cases.

Several law firms challenged this directive, leading the GBA to petition the Chief Justice, arguing that it deviates from established judicial practice and risks "selective justice." Dr Srem-Sai maintains that the legal vacation should not be seen as a complete halt to judicial proceedings, especially when delays can impact ongoing criminal cases and the parties' interests.

This disagreement highlights a tension between the GBA's stance on legal vacation and the Attorney-General's Office's commitment to the timely administration of justice.