Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie has rejected a request by lawyers for former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahen and former National Food and Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO) Chief Executive Officer Hanan Abdul-Wahab to defer proceedings in their cases until the end of the legal vacation.

The decision follows separate petitions submitted to the Chief Justice on August 5 by lawyers for the two accused persons, challenging the authorisation for the judges handling the cases to sit during the judicial recess.

The defence teams, led by Samuel Atta Akyea for Adu-Boahen and former Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame for Abdul-Wahab, argued that the decision to continue substantive criminal proceedings during the legal vacation was inconsistent with established judicial practice.

In their petitions, the lawyers maintained that judges authorised to sit during the legal vacation are traditionally permitted to deal with motions and other urgent matters, rather than conduct substantive criminal trials.

Mr Dame, in particular, argued that Abdul-Wahab’s trial had not commenced before the legal vacation and therefore should not have been scheduled for hearing during the recess.

He contended that the decision to authorise the trial during the vacation, without the consent of the parties, was irregular and departed from the established practice governing court sittings during the legal break.

Mr Akyea raised similar objections in respect of Adu-Boahen’s case, arguing that no exceptional circumstances were warranting the continuation of the proceedings during the vacation.

The defence teams also informed the Chief Justice that members of their legal teams had made personal and professional arrangements for the vacation, with some having travelled outside the country before the decision to proceed with the cases was communicated.

They consequently asked that the proceedings be deferred until the courts resumed their normal sittings in October.

However, addressing the 2nd Quadrennial Delegates Congress of the Senior Staff Association of the Judicial Service on Tuesday, August 11, Chief Justice Baffoe-Bonnie rejected the request.

He explained that decisions on whether to adjourn a case were matters for the respective courts and could not be treated as administrative decisions to be determined by the legal vacation.

“Adjournments are judicial matters, not administrative decisions. It is not for lawyers to dictate when judges sit. Once a warrant has been issued for a judge to sit during the legal vacation, that judge has full authority to manage his court’s work,” the Chief Justice said.

The development comes as the courts continue to deal with the high-profile criminal proceedings involving the two former public officials.

On Tuesday, proceedings in Adu-Boahen’s case were affected by the absence of his defence lawyers, who had earlier indicated that they would not participate in hearings during the legal vacation.

The court subsequently adjourned proceedings for further case management, with August 18 set as the next date.

Position of GBA

In a notice dated August 10 addressed to the Chief Justice, the GBA argued that Vacation Courts were established by convention to deal with emergencies and interlocutory matters only, not full criminal trials.

The President of the GBA, Efua Ghartey, wrote: “By convention over the years, certain courts have been designated as Vacation Courts to handle any emergencies arising during the vacation, usually interlocutory matters and never trials.”

The Association stressed that forcing lawyers to appear for substantive trials during vacation undermines the purpose of the recess, which is meant for rest and administrative work.