Legal vacation: I will not violate the traditions of this practice because of CJ’s pleasure - Atta Akyea

Lead counsel for former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei Boateng, Samuel Atta Akyea, has declared that he will not appear in court during Ghana’s legal vacation despite a directive from the Chief Justice for the trial to continue.

Mr Atta Akyea was absent from court on Tuesday, August 11, when the case came up for hearing, insisting that he would respect what he described as the longstanding tradition governing the legal vacation.

Speaking on TV3’s Daily Brief, the former Attorney General maintained that he would not attend the proceedings scheduled for August 17, despite the court’s directive.

I am not going to court on August 17 at all. I will not violate the traditions of the practice because of the pleasure of the CJ. I am telling you this, it is very important,” he said.

The case involving Mr Adu-Boahene and his wife has been adjourned to August 17, with the court directing the accused persons to produce their lawyers or face the possibility of the prosecution’s witness being discharged.

Justice Achibonga also directed Mr Atta Akyea to appear in court on the next date or risk the accused persons being required to conduct the cross-examination of the prosecution's witness themselves.

The directive has intensified the ongoing debate over whether part-heard criminal trials should continue during Ghana's legal vacation when defence counsel have indicated that they are unavailable.

Mr Atta Akyea strongly criticised the suggestion that his clients could personally cross-examine a prosecution witness if their lawyer was unavailable.

He argued that the charges against the accused persons involve complicated financial and criminal matters requiring specialised legal representation.

“Why should Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his wife Angela Adjei Boateng have been charged with multiple offences including stealing, causing financial loss to the state and money laundering?” he asked.

He questioned the rationale behind requiring an accused person without legal training to cross-examine a prosecution witness in what he described as a technically complex trial.

“A judge in a very technical case of this nature that a man’s lawyer is on vacation and the judge is saying that if your lawyer doesn’t come, go and find another lawyer, but he is saying that you come and stand and cross-examine?” he said.

Mr Atta Akyea further argued that a person without legal training could not reasonably be expected to conduct an effective cross-examination in such proceedings.

“How can a lay person cross-examine in such matter? You are asking a carpenter to go and do a surgery,” he said.

The senior lawyer also called for a review of the legal framework governing Ghana's legal vacation.

He argued that if the established practice of legal vacation is no longer to be respected, the relevant provisions should be removed altogether.

“Then, we should delete Order 79 of C.I. 47 so we don’t have legal vacation,” he stated.

His comments come against the backdrop of growing controversy over the decision by some courts to continue hearing part-heard criminal cases during the August 1 to September 30 legal vacation.

The position taken by Mr Atta Akyea follows concerns raised by the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) over directives requiring lawyers to appear before Vacation Courts despite notifying the courts of their unavailability.

The GBA has appealed to Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie to ensure that established rules and traditions governing legal vacation are respected.

The association maintains that while designated Vacation Courts may sit to deal with urgent and interlocutory matters, the traditional practice has been to avoid continuing trials where the absence of counsel would prevent effective participation.

The GBA has argued that where counsel indicates an inability to attend during the vacation, the appropriate course should generally be to adjourn the matter rather than proceed without the lawyer.

The dispute has triggered a wider debate about the balance between lawyers' right to observe the legal vacation and the constitutional need to ensure that criminal proceedings are determined without unnecessary delay.

Supporters of continued hearings argue that legal vacation should not automatically halt criminal trials, particularly where accused persons are on remand or cases have already been partly heard.

Lawyers opposing the practice, however, maintain that effective representation is essential to a fair trial and that forcing counsel to appear during a period traditionally designated for legal vacation could undermine established judicial practice.

The controversy is now likely to place greater scrutiny on Order 79 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) and the extent to which its provisions apply to criminal proceedings.

The outcome could have implications for how Ghana's courts manage part-heard criminal trials during future legal vacations.