Legal practitioner Samson Lardy Anyenini has questioned whether lawyers representing former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahen and former NAFCO Chief Executive Officer Hanan Abdul-Wahab were forced to accept the dates fixed for their cases or agreed to them with the courts.
His comments come amid growing concerns over the decision by the Chief Justice to allow cases to proceed during the legal vacation, despite requests from some lawyers for adjournments until October.
Speaking on Adom FM’s Dwaso Nsem, Mr Anyenini said the dates for the legal vacation, including the names of the courts and judges who would be sitting during the period, had been communicated as far back as July.
He explained that lawyers are usually aware of the vacation schedule and often plan their personal, professional and international commitments around it.
According to him, the legal vacation period is also known for several conferences and professional events, resulting in many lawyers scheduling their travels around the period.
“Most people schedule their travels and activities for this period, so around this time, a good number of lawyers travel out of Ghana,” he said.
Mr Anyenini noted that judges who are not sitting during the vacation also make their own travel and holiday arrangements, making the scheduling of cases during the period something that normally requires coordination.
He therefore believes the lawyers involved in the Adu-Boahen and former NAFCO boss cases should clarify whether the dates on which their cases were adjourned were imposed on them or agreed upon through consultation with the court.
“I have thought about something. We should be asking ourselves whether the dates they agreed on in August, did the judges force them, or was it agreed upon?” he asked.
He explained that, in normal court proceedings, adjournment dates are generally arrived at through discussions between lawyers and the judge rather than being unilaterally imposed.
According to him, lawyers typically indicate dates that are convenient for them, while the judge also considers his or her own schedule before a date is agreed upon.
“Normally when there is an adjournment of a case, the judge doesn’t even get the date he wants. It is the lawyers’ date that is worked with,” he explained.
“They discuss and agree on consensus. If it is favourable for the judge, it is agreed upon, but if there are issues, the judge has preoccupation, then a new date will be looked at.”
Mr Anyenini said this process raises an important question about the current resistance to cases being heard during the legal vacation.
He suggested that lawyers should first establish whether the dates were imposed on them or mutually agreed upon before challenging the decision to proceed with the cases.
“So we must ask the lawyers if the dates were forced on them. Because if it was agreed upon, then what will be the basis for the opposition and resistance now?” he asked.
His comments add another dimension to the ongoing debate between the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) and the judiciary over the observance of the legal vacation and the handling of cases during the period.
Also read:
