President of the Young Lawyers Forum of the Ghana Bar Association, Noah Ephraem Adamtey Tetteh, has challenged the position that vacation courts do not conduct trials.
He says such a claim is inconsistent with both legal practice and the realities of proceedings before vacation courts.
Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express, Mr Tetteh described the position attributed to the Ghana Bar Association as “quite problematic.”
“I find that position quite problematic, and I think that kind of position does not really adhere to, in my view, what we see with the practice of law that I have witnessed in my few years at the bar, and also with the law itself,” he said.
His comments come amid a controversy over the Chief Justice’s directive for certain cases to be heard during the legal vacation.
The debate has centred on whether vacation courts are limited to interlocutory matters, motions and emergency applications, or whether they can also deal with substantive issues, including trials.
Mr Tetteh said it is difficult to draw a clear line between procedural matters and substantive issues during the legal vacation.
“First, I have heard that argument that when we think of what we do during vacation, we don’t go into the substance of the matter, but that is never the case because how do you even distinguish between what is the substance of the matter and what is not?” he asked.
He cited summary judgment applications as an example of proceedings that can determine the outcome of a case.
“I have been before vacation courts, and I am sure my seniors here might have seen similar instances where parties have filed motions that terminate the case,” he said.
“For example, when a party is filing a summary judgment, you can’t term that as just a procedural or a motion that does not go to the substantive heart of the case,” he added.
Mr Tetteh also pointed to judgment on admission applications.
“When someone files a motion or notice for judgment on admission, for instance, that is not a merely procedural matter. That brings the matter to a close,” he said.
He therefore believes it is problematic to maintain that vacation courts cannot deal with substantive matters or trials.
“And so it is very problematic when we say the vacation courts do not go into the substance of the matter or do not go into trial,” he said.
However, he said an important distinction must be made when assessing the Chief Justice’s directive concerning cases involving former National Signals Bureau boss Kwabena Adu-Boahene and others.
“We must distinguish between two important issues here. One is whether the Chief Justice’s warrant was ordering the courts to do specific things,” he said.
Mr Tetteh argued that the Chief Justice has the authority under Ghana’s laws to direct that certain cases be heard.
“That is the point I’m actually driving at. The Chief Justice asked the judge in hearing those cases to do specific acts, but that would then be the Chief Justice taking away the individual or independence in the exercise of judicial power by judges,” he said.
“That is not what I see the Chief Justice doing,” he added.
“The Chief Justice has the power under our law to state that certain cases must be heard specifically. We should not lose track of that,” Mr Tetteh said.
Also read:
