Legal scholar and governance advocate Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, popularly known as Kwaku Azar, has challenged the Ghana Bar Association’s (GBA) objection to judges continuing part-heard criminal trials during the legal vacation.
The GBA, in a letter to the Chief Justice dated August 10, 2026, raised concerns about judges continuing with part-heard criminal cases during the legal vacation, citing issues including lawyers’ vacation plans, travel, availability, closed law firms and the need for a healthy work-life balance.
Prof. Asare, however, argues that while those concerns may be legitimate, the interests of clients, particularly accused persons, must also be considered.
He questioned whether an accused person on remand should have to wait an additional two months for trial simply because his or her lawyer is on vacation. He also raised concerns about accused persons on bail who may have lived for years under the uncertainty and reputational consequences of unresolved criminal proceedings.
Kwaku Azar Questions GBA’s Reliance on Civil Procedure Rules
Prof. Asare questioned the GBA’s reliance on Order 79 Rule 4 of C.I. 47, pointing out that the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules primarily govern civil proceedings, while the cases under discussion involve criminal trials.
He acknowledged that Ghanaian law recognises court vacations, citing Section 80(2)(g) of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), which gives authority for rules regulating court sittings and prescribing periods of court vacations.
However, he argued that the existence of a court vacation does not automatically mean that part-heard criminal trials must stop between August 1 and September 30.
According to Prof. Asare, Order 79 Rule 4 must also be read together with Rule 1(1), which provides that, subject to Act 459, the Chief Justice may appoint any day, including during vacations, for the hearing of cases as circumstances require.
He therefore contends that the GBA cannot rely on the vacation provision while overlooking the rule that gives the Chief Justice authority to schedule hearings during the vacation.
Criminal Procedure Law Requires Delay to Be Justified
Prof. Asare further argued that the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), does not appear to provide for an automatic two-month vacation for criminal proceedings.
He cited Section 168, which provides that when the prosecutor and accused appear at the appointed time, the court shall proceed to hear the case, while Section 169 gives the court discretion to grant an adjournment where necessary.
He stressed that the discretion to adjourn belongs to the court and not to lawyers.
According to him, counsel may apply for an adjournment and provide reasons, including legitimate vacation arrangements, but such a request should not automatically bring a criminal trial to a halt.
He also pointed to statutory limits on adjournments, arguing that Act 30 treats delays in criminal proceedings as matters that must be justified and kept within reasonable limits.
Accused Persons’ Constitutional Rights Must Be Considered
Prof. Asare said any interpretation of court rules must be consistent with the Constitution, particularly Article 19(1), which guarantees an accused person a fair hearing within a reasonable time.
He said the concern is even more serious where an accused person is in custody, citing Article 14(4) and the constitutional protection against prolonged detention without trial.
However, he stressed that the issue is not limited to remand prisoners, noting that accused persons on bail may also suffer reputational damage, financial costs, anxiety and prolonged uncertainty while awaiting the conclusion of their cases.
He added that criminal justice also affects victims, complainants, witnesses, families and the state, all of whom have an interest in the timely determination of criminal cases.
‘Criminal Justice Has No Vacation’
Prof. Asare acknowledged that lawyers, judges and other justice-sector professionals deserve leave and work-life balance, but argued that individual leave arrangements should not result in the justice system shutting down.
He compared the situation to essential public services, noting that institutions such as hospitals and police services make arrangements for staff to take leave while ensuring that essential services continue.
He also pointed to the existence of vacation courts and previous instances where Commercial Courts have sat during legal vacation to address delays and case backlogs.
Prof. Asare maintained that a court vacation is essentially an administrative arrangement, while the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time is a constitutional guarantee.
He therefore urged that lawyers and judges be allowed to take their leave while arrangements are made to keep criminal justice moving.
“Criminal justice has no vacation,” Prof. Asare stated, arguing that a lawyer’s vacation should not become an accused person’s additional punishment before conviction or unnecessarily prolong the uncertainty faced by victims, witnesses and the state.
Story by Freedom Etsey Lavoe