Former Deputy Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Diana Asonaba Dapaah, has questioned the rationale behind compelling accused persons to personally cross-examine prosecution witnesses when their lawyers are unavailable during Ghana’s legal vacation.
Her comments come amid a growing dispute between sections of the legal profession and the Judiciary over the decision to allow some substantive criminal cases involving former government officials and New Patriotic Party (NPP) figures to proceed during the annual legal vacation.
The controversy intensified on Tuesday, August 11, 2026, when the High Court in Accra warned former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General, Kwabena Adu-Boahene, and his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng, that they could be required to continue cross-examining a prosecution witness themselves if their lawyers failed to appear at the next sitting.
The warning followed the absence of lead defence counsel, Samuel Atta Akyea, and other members of the defence team. Justice Francis Achibonga subsequently adjourned the case to August 17, while indicating that the prosecution witness could be discharged if the accused persons remained unrepresented and failed to proceed with the cross-examination.
Reacting to the development in an interview on Kumasi-based Pure FM with Kojo Sebor, Hon. Dapaah questioned why accused persons would have retained lawyers in the first place if they were expected to conduct complex criminal proceedings on their own.
“If the accused can cross-examine the witness themselves, would they have gone for lawyers?” she asked, in an apparent reference to the court’s directive.
Her intervention comes against the backdrop of a broader disagreement over whether substantive criminal trials should be conducted during the legal vacation and, if so, under what circumstances.
The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) has strongly objected to the current approach, arguing that the established practice is for Vacation Courts to deal principally with urgent and interlocutory matters rather than substantive trials where counsel have indicated that they are unavailable.
The Association has also urged Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie to respect the established rules and traditions governing the vacation, stressing that lawyers who have formally indicated their inability to attend should not be compelled to appear.
The Judiciary’s position, however, has been that the Chief Justice has the authority to designate judges to sit during the vacation, while the Deputy Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, has argued that lawyers cannot unilaterally determine whether a case proceeds.
According to Dr Srem-Sai, the appropriate course for counsel who have genuine reasons for being unavailable is to apply to the court for an adjournment, rather than simply decline to attend.
But Hon. Asonaba Dapaah believes the issue goes beyond whether a judge has the administrative authority to sit during the vacation, raising questions about the effect of such proceedings on the effective administration of justice.
She argued that the legal vacation is not an arbitrary holiday created for convenience, but a longstanding component of Ghana’s justice system.
“By the Constitution and relevant laws, legal vacation has become a time-honoured imperative for ensuring an effective justice delivery system,” she stated.
The Judiciary’s official explanation of the legal year provides for a long vacation for the Superior Courts from August 1 to September 30 each year.
The former Deputy Attorney General has also challenged the basis for selecting particular cases for hearing during the period, especially amid concerns that a disproportionate number of the cases involve persons associated with the NPP.
“What circumstances require that only three cases involving NPP members ought to be presided over during this legal vacation?” she questioned.
Her concern touches on one of the central political arguments surrounding the controversy, with the NPP calling for the suspension of the Adu-Boahen and Hanan Abdul-Wahab cases until October, when the legal vacation ends.
The NPP has accused the Chief Justice of selectively applying the vacation arrangements, while the Judiciary and government have maintained that the continuation of the cases is intended to ensure that justice is not unnecessarily delayed.
The Chief Justice has rejected requests by lawyers for Mr Adu-Boahen and Mr Abdul-Wahab to defer their proceedings until after the vacation. The cases have consequently remained scheduled for hearing despite objections from their respective defence teams.
For Ms Dapaah, however, the pursuit of speed in the administration of justice must not come at the expense of fairness.
“We must not sacrifice justice on the altar of expediency,” she cautioned.
Source: Purefmonlinegh.com || Evans Osei-Bonsu || 2026
