Were dates forced on you or agreed upon? – Samson Anyenini asks lawyers amid legal vacation brouhaha (Listen)

Legal expert Samson Anyenini has raised questions about whether lawyers representing former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahen and former National Alcohol & Food Commission CEO Hanan Abdul-Wahab were coerced into accepting the dates set for their cases or if they willingly agreed to them. His remarks come as there is increasing controversy over the Chief Justice permitting trials to continue during the legal vacation, even after some lawyers requested adjournments until October.

Speaking on Adom FM’s Dwaso Nsem, Anyenini mentioned that the dates for the legal vacation, along with the names of the courts and judges presiding during that time, were communicated to lawyers as early as July. He pointed out that lawyers are typically aware of the vacation schedule and plan their personal, professional, and international engagements around it. Furthermore, the legal vacation is also known for numerous conferences and professional events, leading many lawyers to schedule their travels accordingly.

Anyenini noted that judges who are not present during the vacation also arrange their own travel and holidays, which makes scheduling cases during this period a process that generally requires coordination. He believes that lawyers involved in the Adu-Boahen and Abdul-Wahab cases should clarify whether the adjournment dates were imposed upon them or if they were mutually agreed upon through discussions with the court.

According to Anyenini, in typical court proceedings, adjournment dates are usually determined through conversations between lawyers and the judge rather than being unilaterally decided by the judge. He explained that lawyers usually propose convenient dates, while the judge considers his or her own schedule before a date is settled.

"Normally when there is an adjournment of a case, the judge doesn’t even get the date he wants. It is the lawyers’ date that is worked with," he elaborated. "They discuss and agree on consensus. If it is favorable for the judge, it is agreed upon, but if there are issues, the judge has preoccupations, then a new date will be looked at."

Anyenini argued that the current opposition to cases being heard during the legal vacation necessitates an understanding of whether the dates were forced upon the lawyers or mutually agreed upon. He questioned whether lawyers should first establish the origin of the dates before challenging the decision to proceed with the cases. "So we must ask the lawyers if the dates were forced on them. Because if it was agreed upon, then what will be the basis for the opposition and resistance now?" he asked.

His comments add another layer to the ongoing disagreement between the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) and the judiciary regarding the observance of the legal vacation and the management of cases during that period.