C: The origin of ‘vacation’ in law practice

 A little excursion through the historical antecedents of the concept of vacation will help to enrich the conversation. In the period before 1876, the indigenes of the Gold Coast were governed by their own customary laws and usages. The Supreme Court Ordinance of 1876 introduced the formal English common law courts system to the Gold Coast. The Ordinance set the stage for the courts system we have now. In that same year, the Gold Coast Courts Ordinance[1] was passed to set up and regulate the courts in the colony. Under the Courts Ordinance, there was created a Rules Committee that was responsible for formulating the rules of procedure for the various courts.[2]

 

In 1954, the Rules Committee made the Supreme Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, popularly called L.N. 140A.[3] L.N 140A was the applicable rules of practice for the High Court for several years (of course, with several amendments) before the current High Court rules (C.I. 47) were made. L.N. 140A provided for vacation periods. The six weeks period from the third Monday in July and the period from 18^th December to 31^st December of each year were observed as vacation in every Divisional Court of the Supreme Court (now High Court) and the Land Court.[4]  

 

With the coming of the Constitution, 1992 and the Courts Act of 1993, the Rules of Court Committee[5] made new rules of procedure for the Supreme Court,[6] Court of Appeal[7] and the High Court.[8] Each of these rules made the same provision for periods of vacations of the courts.[9] By the time I was called to the Bar in October, 1998, and up to now, the rules on vacations for the Superior Courts have not been in doubt.

 

It is interesting to observe that both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal Rules do not give a Chief Justice any jurisdiction to convene or authorise the convening of a sitting of either of those Courts during vacation. There is no provision in the law that vests a Chief Justice with power to constitute a Court of Appeal panel by warrant, fiat or any other means. This calls into question the legal basis of a recent hearing and decision of the Court of Appeal panel this vacation period.[10]

 

In the case of the High Courts, since these are trial courts, and mostly courts of first instance, the rules make allowance for exceptional and urgent situations where a Chief Justice may appoint a court to sit during vacation. It is for this reason that a small number of High Courts may be designated by the Chief Justice to sit. It was never the intendment of the Rules of Court Committee that any High Court designated as vacation court must sit and handle all its cases as if it were sitting in term.

 

No Chief Justice’s warrant or fiat or directive can coerce a lawyer to forfeit their time of rest and attend court just because a certain judge before whom they have a pending trial is sitting during vacation. Any proceedings, orders, directions or judgment given in any such case without the participation of the lawyer on record will be without jurisdiction. It will be advisable for the Chief Justice to direct vacation judges to handle only emergency applications and leave substantive matters for term, as it should be.

 

The last time a Chief Justice was issuing directives and practice directions with impunity, they refused to heed counsel. The rest is history. In the next episode of Adu Lodge Series, the respondent may be plucked from retirement to appear for 4-days-a-week-without-spouse-and-children proceedings. If they are unlucky, their catheters and pacemakers would be seized along with their phones and dentures.

 

D: Other matters arising

            1.         GBA’s petition to the Chief Justice

At the beginning of August, 2026, it had become apparent that some designated vacation courts were bent on continuing with the trial of pending cases during vacation. The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) stepped in to petition the Chief Justice for redress. It appears the National Secretary had taken an early vacation so the President elected to be her own letter writer. To some, including my good self, the points raised by the GBA were legitimate. To others, it was not music to their ears. They did not understand why jail-bound accused persons should be breathing freely in the name of vacation when expectant foot soldiers were hungry for ‘action.’ Their irritation was understandable. With over 2,000 ORAL cases expected to be tried and yield convictions within four years, every passing second is akin to a decade. Thus, a section of citizens who expressed their sentiments against vacation were well within their rights to do so; it was to be expected.

 

What one did not expect was the President of the Young Lawyers Forum of the GBA speaking publicly against the position canvassed by the GBA in its petition to the Chief Justice. Barring any possibility that the young President’s pronouncements were AI-generated, one would have thought that if the GBA spoke, it did so as representing the entire executive and membership of the Association. Of course, members who disagree with the position taken are free to criticize it. But when an executive member of the Association speaks against the official position in public, then I am afraid his or her position on the executive becomes no longer tenable. Be that as it may, I believe the young President is now warming himself into the young presidential seat so we may gloss over this and hope some lessons may be learned therefrom.

 

            2.     Beyond impunity: Season 2?

Once upon a time, a Chief Justice decided to change the panel that had been billed to deliver judgment in an appeal pending at the Supreme Court. Some judges were dropped, others were added, and the Chief Justice selected herself unto the panel. The condemnation was immediate and profound. The then Attorney-General, who was the prosecutor/respondent, organized a press conference and defended the Chief Justice’s action. The Attorney-General was in turn criticized for his partial stance. It is to the Attorney-General’s eternal credit that he did not repeat such action. The event later appeared as one of the grounds in a petition for the Chief Justice’s dismissal.

 

Fast forward to August, 2026. Vacation judges are threatening to conduct trials. Counsel for accused persons have indicated their unavailability to participate in the vacation trials. The judges remain resolute in their stance. The GBA steps in and petitions the Chief Justice for redress. The Deputy Attorney-General, who is the prosecutor in the cases concerned, issues a 4-page write-up in reply to the GBA’s petition. The prosecutor is now the mouthpiece of the Chief Justice and the Court before whom he is prosecuting. The Chief Justice has not put pen to paper on the issue, either by himself or through the Judicial Secretary. Considering the new role the Deputy Attorney-General has assigned himself, how justice is to be manifested going forward in respect of the cases remains to be seen.

 

History truly has a wicked way of repeating itself.

 

E: Conclusion

The tradition of lawyers and judges going on vacation during specific times of the year is rooted in law. In the case of the High Court, the law makes exception for a few courts to sit during vacation to attend to urgent cases. It is not the position of the law that when a judge is appointed to sit during vacation, then all cases on trial before the judge prior to vacation must be continued. Such cases can continue during vacation only where the lawyers and/or prosecutors agree to do so.

 

Lawyers’ lives matter. We are grateful to the Hon. Deputy Attorney-General for reminding us of the need for our compatriots who are afflicted with what he calls “indulgences and addictions” to take the needed rest. With such humanitarian thoughts, one would have expected Honourable to advocate on the side of the afflicted who, as far as the statistics go, abound in both factions of the ‘vacation divide.’ Compassion, not mockery, would be the best healer from the leader of the afflicted Bar.