Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie has expressed his strong disapproval of concerns raised by the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) that lawyers should not be made to procced with cases during legal vacations.
According to the Chief Justice, a judge who is available and ready to hear a case cannot be prevented from proceeding merely because a lawyer has made personal plans during the vacation period.
Speaking at the 2nd Quadrennial Delegates Congress of the Senior Staff Association of the Judicial Service of Ghana in Sunyani in the Bono Region, Justice Baffoe-Bonnie said lawyers could only take leave if their clients agreed to it.
“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.
The Chief Justice was reacting to concerns over lawyers being asked to appear in court during the legal vacation, particularly in cases that had already been scheduled for hearing.
He criticised the position that a lawyer could simply notify the Chief Justice that a case should not proceed because the lawyer had made personal arrangements outside the court.
“To write to the Chief Justice to say that the cases should not be adjourned to the vacation, so I am not coming, I have already made arrangements outside, so I am not coming.
“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.
Justice Baffoe-Bonnie also clarified that decisions on whether a case should be adjourned are judicial decisions made by the judge handling the matter, rather than administrative decisions for the Chief Justice.
“No, adjournments are not at the instance of the Chief Justice. Adjournment is a judicial act. This is something that is so basic,” he said.
The Chief Justice’s comments come after the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) wrote to him on August 10, 2026, raising concerns about lawyers being required to appear in court during the legal vacation.
The GBA argued that lawyers who had notified the court of their unavailability during the period should not be compelled to attend proceedings.
The Association said its intervention followed concerns raised by Zoe, Akyea & Co, Dame & Partners, and Sam Okudzeto & Associates over notices requiring lawyers to appear before judges handling part-heard criminal cases during the vacation.
The GBA cited the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, CI 47, particularly Order 79, Rule 4, which provides for three legal vacations each year. The second and longest vacation runs from August 1 to September 30.
According to the Association, the vacation is intended to provide judges, lawyers and judicial staff with a break following the second term of the legal year.
While acknowledging that Vacation Courts and Virtual Courts may deal with urgent matters, including interlocutory applications, the GBA maintained that trials are generally not conducted during the period.
It further argued that the availability of counsel should be considered when determining whether a case should proceed.
“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 also maintained that parties in civil and criminal cases should not be forced to represent themselves simply because their lawyers are unavailable during the vacation.
The differing positions have sparked a broader debate over the extent to which court proceedings should continue during the legal vacation.
Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, has also maintained that the decision on whether proceedings should continue rests with the court and not with lawyers.