Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie has rejected the position that lawyers can refuse to appear in court simply because proceedings have been scheduled during Ghana’s legal vacation.
He said a judge who is sitting and ready to hear a case cannot be prevented from proceeding merely because a lawyer has made personal arrangements for the vacation period.
The Chief Justice made the remarks at the 2nd Quadrennial Delegates Congress of the Senior Staff Association of the Judicial Service of Ghana in Sunyani in the Bono Region.
He said lawyers could take leave during the legal vacation where their clients agreed to it, but could not unilaterally prevent a case from proceeding before a sitting judge.
“You cannot say that there is legal vacation, so a judge who is actually sitting and ready to do your case cannot do it. No, that’s not it,” he said.
Justice Baffoe-Bonnie also criticised the suggestion that lawyers could write to the Chief Justice to prevent cases from being heard during the vacation because they had already made personal arrangements.
“You are a lawyer, you have your clients. If your clients decide to give you leave, well, go on leave, but you cannot say that there is a legal vacation and the judge who is actually sitting cannot do your case. No, that is not it,” he stated.
The Chief Justice further clarified that decisions on adjournments are matters for the judges handling individual cases and do not fall under his administrative authority.
“Adjournments are not at the instance of the Chief Justice. Adjournment is a judicial act. This is something that is so basic,” he said.
His comments follow a letter from the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) dated August 10, 2026, in which the association appealed to the Chief Justice over concerns about lawyers being required to appear in court during the legal vacation.
The GBA said it had received petitions from Zoe, Akyea & Co, Dame & Partners, and Sam Okudzeto & Associates concerning notices requiring counsel to appear before judges designated to continue part-heard criminal cases during the vacation.
The Association referred to Order 79, Rule 4 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, CI 47, which provides for three annual court vacations. It said the second and longest vacation runs from August 1 to September 30.
According to the GBA, the vacation is intended to provide judges, lawyers and judicial staff with a break following the second term of the legal calendar.
The Association acknowledged that Vacation Courts and Virtual Courts may hear urgent matters, including interlocutory applications, but maintained that trials are ordinarily not conducted during the period.
It also argued that the availability of counsel should be considered when determining whether proceedings should continue.
“Once Counsel in a matter indicates their unavailability to attend Court during the vacation, even though the Court may have listed their case, it cannot proceed with the case in any way,” the GBA stated.
The Association further maintained that parties in civil and criminal proceedings should not be compelled to represent themselves where their lawyers are unavailable during the vacation.
The disagreement has prompted a wider debate over the extent to which court proceedings can continue during the legal vacation.
Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Dr Justice Srem-Sai has also maintained that the legal vacation does not amount to a shutdown of the courts and that the decision on whether a case proceeds rests with the court rather than counsel.
