Lawyers representing several high-profile accused persons have petitioned the Chief Justice, challenging a directive requiring selected criminal trials to proceed during the legal vacation on grounds that it is unconstitutional and amounts to discriminatory treatment.
The petitions come barely a week after the Chief Justice issued warrants authorising Justice Francis Achibonga and Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay to sit during the annual legal vacation to hear selected criminal matters involving former public officials. The warrants were announced in open court during proceedings in Republic v Hanan Abdul Wahab & Anor. and Republic v Gifty Oware-Mensah & Ors. Following the announcement, Justice Achibonga fixed hearing dates in August despite objections from defence counsel.
The petitions, filed by Dame & Partners and Zoe, Akyea & Co., relate to the ongoing criminal proceedings in Republic v Kwabena Adu-Boahene (CR/0418/2026), Republic v Hanan Abdul Wahab (CR/0530/2026), and Republic v Mustapha Hamid & Ors. Copies have also been served on the National Secretariat of the Ghana Bar Association.
The dispute concerns the Chief Justice’s directive authorising certain High Court judges to continue hearing selected criminal matters during the legal vacation. Defence counsel contend that the directive departs from the established practice governing the vacation and raises serious constitutional and procedural concerns.
Constitutional Objections
Dame & Partners, representing Hanan Abdul Wahab, argue that the directive infringes the constitutional right of an accused person to be represented by counsel of his choice. According to the firm, counsel had made professional commitments during the vacation after working throughout the legal year and are therefore unavailable to continue the trial.
The petition states that lead counsel has scheduled professional engagements during the vacation, while another senior lawyer on the legal team, Mr. Richard Gyambiby, is engaged in marking examination scripts for the Ghana School of Law before attending other professional commitments.
The firm therefore maintains that no lawyer is available to conduct the matter during the vacation and contends that compelling the trial to proceed would undermine the accused person’s constitutional right to legal representation by counsel of choice.
Similarly, Zoe, Akyea & Co., acting for Kwabena Adu-Boahene, informed the Chief Justice that requiring counsel to appear during the legal vacation would disrupt long-standing professional and personal commitments. The firm argues that its lawyers have worked continuously throughout the legal year and should not be singled out to continue proceedings while the rest of the Bar observes the legal vacation.
Claims of Selective Treatment
Apart from the issue of counsel’s availability, both firms contend that the decision to continue only a handful of criminal trials during the vacation creates an appearance of unequal treatment.
Dame & Partners argue that selecting a limited number of criminal cases for hearing during the vacation, while numerous other criminal matters remain adjourned until the next legal term, exposes the judiciary to allegations of discriminatory treatment. According to the petition, accused persons are entitled to have their cases conducted under the same procedures applicable to other criminal trials and should not be subjected to a separate process.
Zoe, Akyea & Co. similarly contend that the directive could create a perception of selective justice, noting that numerous criminal and civil matters have been adjourned until the commencement of the next legal year in October 2026 to afford both judges and lawyers the benefit of the legal vacation.
Other Defence Lawyers Join the Protest
Other defence lawyers have also expressed similar concerns. Mr. Augustine Obour, counsel for Hajia Faiza Wuni, and Ms. Hanifa Yahaya, counsel for Mr. Mustapha Hamid, have separately petitioned the Chief Justice, indicating that they are unavailable to participate in proceedings during the legal vacation and requesting that their respective cases be adjourned until the commencement of the next legal year.
The petitions raise questions about the administration of justice during the legal vacation. While the judiciary may authorise judges to sit during the vacation where circumstances require, the petitioners contend that such discretion must be exercised consistently with constitutional guarantees, including the right to counsel of one’s choice, equality before the law, and the right to a fair trial.
As of the time of publication, the Office of the Chief Justice had not publicly responded to the petitions. The issues raised are expected to generate significant legal debate on the scope of the Chief Justice’s administrative powers during the legal vacation and the constitutional rights of accused persons in ongoing criminal proceedings.
