[REVISION HISTORY]

Ghana judicial vacation reform debate

Updated 2 times since CLSTR started tracking revisions of this situation.

What changed

2026-08-11 12:38 UTC → 2026-08-11 22:58 UTC · added ~~removed~~

Debate has emerged regarding the annual two-month judicial vacation in Ghana, which runs from August 1 to September 30. Activists have called for the end of the shutdown, labeling it a “colonial relic” that delays justice, and suggesting that staggered leave could keep courts operational year-round. In response to concerns about how the period is managed, legal scholars have dismissed claims that the Chief Justice selectively assigns high-profile cases to vacation judges, stating such allegations are “simply false.” The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) has formally appealed to Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie to uphold established judicial traditions regarding the vacation. This follows complaints from law firms, including Zoe, Akyea & Co, Dame & Partners, and Sam Okudzeto & Associates, which reported being served notices to appear for part-heard criminal trials during the break. The GBA argues that while Vacation Courts handle urgent or interlocutory matters, they should not be used for full trials, especially when counsel has declared unavailability. The association maintains that matters should be adjourned to protect the purpose of the judicial respite. Tensions have escalated following a ruling by the Accra High Court, which rejected a defense request to adjourn the trial of former National Petroleum Authority CEO Dr. Mustapha Abdul-Hamid until October. The court ruled that proceedings will continue during the vacation unless the Chief Justice withdraws the warrant directing high-profile criminal cases to proceed during this period. Chief Justice Baffoe-Bonnie has since rejected the GBA’s demands to halt proceedings during the vacation. He emphasized that personal travel plans do not grant lawyers the authority to prevent sitting judges from conducting business, noting that adjournments are judicial acts decided by presiding judges rather than administrative orders from the Chief Justice.

Versions

Only revisions since CLSTR began indexing content versions appear here. Select a version to see what changed compared to the one before it.