Legal vacation controversy: The GBA lacks principles

Every August, Ghana’s courts slow down. It’s called a legal vacation, and for good reason. From August 1 to September 30, judges, lawyers and court staff get what Order 79, Rule 4 of C.I. 47 promises them: a breather after 10 months of non-stop litigation.

But this August, the Ghana Bar Association decided the vacation was only for lawyers. And in doing so, it exposed the same selective morality that has damaged public trust in the Association for years.

On August 10, 2026, the GBA outrageously wrote to acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie. Three firms, Zoe, Akyea & Co; Dame & Partners; and Sam Okudzeto & Associates had complained about being ordered to appear for part-heard criminal cases during vacation.

The GBA’s complaint was simple: vacation courts handle emergencies and interlocutory matters, not trials. And crucially, “lawyers are not required to appear before a Vacation Court if they are unavailable”. If counsel can’t come, the judges should adjourn to a date the lawyers choose.

The argument sounds reasonable. Rest matters, burnout is real. But then the GBA went further to outrageously imply that proceeding with substantive matters during vacation depends on the lawyers, not the court.

The GBA has completely missed the plot and exposed itself, it has taken sides in the controversy in a way that gives credence to the claims that, it is an annex of the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP).

The courts don’t close, a limited number of judges continue to sit, chosen by the Chief Justice. The GBA ought to acknowledge that, judges have inherent authority to manage their dockets and this is why we call it “summer vacation” or “judges’ vacation”, and not “lawyers’ vacation”.

Justice delayed is justice denied, telling a victim in a part-heard criminal case to wait two months because counsel wants to travel is not “protecting the rule of law.” it’s protecting convenience.

The GBA’s stance is shameful because of the double standard it has exhibited over the years, a section of the public has raised concerns about the bias nature of the association, but it seems not to care. What makes the GBA’s position outrageous is its own record.

In 1995, the GBA tried to remove Chief Justice (CJ) I.K. Abban. Instead of following Article 146, the only constitutional process it filed under Article 2, the Supreme Court rejected it. The question now is, where was this strict adherence to procedure in 1995?.

More recently, the GBA condemned the suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo and demanded government rescind it, warning of a “poor precedent”. Yet when former CJ Torkornoo demanded a public hearing despite the Constitution requiring in camera proceedings, the GBA was silent.

You cannot claim to be the guardian of judicial independence only when it protects your members.

The GBA has also told “partisan lawyers” not to denigrate the judiciary, warning that “their primary fidelity is to the legal profession”. Fair.

But that same fidelity should mean putting clients and the public first. It should mean acknowledging that legal vacation was never meant to shut down justice entirely. Vacation Courts exist precisely to keep the system moving on urgent matters.

To now pretend that any trial during August is an attack on lawyers is to rewrite the rules to suit yourselves.

i. Respect the purpose of vacation: No routine trials. No new long hearings. Vacation Courts stick to emergencies.

ii. Respect the purpose of courts: If a case is part-heard and witnesses are available, judges must retain discretion to continue. The lawyer’s convenience cannot trump the litigant’s right.

iii. Respect consistency: The GBA cannot demand strict constitutionalism from the judiciary while ignoring it in its own history.

Lawyers deserve rest, but they don’t own the calendar. The courts serve the public, not the bar.

The GBA’s letter to the Chief Justice reads less like principle and more like privilege, and this is shameful and hypocritical.