Vacation Courts Can Handle Trials, Says Young Lawyers Forum President in Legal Debate

Ghana's legal system is grappling with a significant procedural question: what cases can vacation courts legitimately hear? The Young Lawyers Forum president has waded into the controversy, arguing that the distinction between procedural matters and substantive trials is far more blurred than commonly understood.

Speaking on Joy News' PM Express this week, Noah Ephraem Adamtey Tetteh rejected the assertion attributed to the Ghana Bar Association that vacation courts are limited to interlocutory matters, motions and emergency applications. He described this position as "quite problematic" and inconsistent with how courts actually operate during legal recess.

The Substance vs. Procedure Problem

At the heart of the debate is whether vacation courts can address matters that determine case outcomes. Tetteh pointed out that drawing a clear line between procedural issues and substantive matters is nearly impossible in practice. He cited two critical examples: summary judgment applications and judgments on admission.

Summary judgments, where a court determines a case without a full trial if one party admits the facts or has no defence, fundamentally resolve disputes. Similarly, judgments on admission are dispositive motions that bring cases to a close. Both are technically "motions," but both go to the heart of the matter. "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," Tetteh explained.

His experience suggests that vacation courts regularly handle such applications, raising the question of whether labelling them as non-substantive is legally accurate.

Why This Matters for Ghana

This debate carries real consequences for Ghana's justice system. The controversy stems from the Chief Justice's directive that certain high-profile cases—including one involving former National Signals Bureau boss Kwabena Adu-Boahene—be heard during the legal vacation. The question of what cases can be scheduled during recess directly impacts case backlogs and judicial efficiency.

If vacation courts cannot address substantive matters, the system loses valuable hearing time during breaks, potentially worsening case delays that already frustrate litigants. Conversely, if vacation courts can handle such matters without restrictions, the Chief Justice's power to direct specific cases to be heard during recess becomes a more straightforward administrative tool rather than a constitutional concern.

Tetteh made an important distinction regarding the Chief Justice's authority, arguing that the Chief Justice does possess the power under Ghanaian law to direct that certain cases be heard. However, he differentiated between ordering courts to hear cases versus ordering judges to reach specific outcomes—the latter would undermine judicial independence.

Reconciling Authority and Independence

The broader significance extends to judicial independence. While Tetteh acknowledged that case scheduling decisions by the Chief Justice involve constitutional considerations, he argued that directing specific cases to be heard is fundamentally different from interfering in how judges decide those cases. The Chief Justice's administrative authority to allocate cases to vacation courts need not compromise the independence of judges hearing them.

This perspective suggests that Ghana's legal framework already accommodates vacation court trials for substantive matters—a position that could resolve current controversies if the Bar Association and judiciary align on the interpretation.

For ordinary Ghanaians awaiting justice, this technical legal debate has practical implications. A broader interpretation of vacation court authority could accelerate case resolution during periods that might otherwise see minimal court activity. As Ghana seeks to improve its justice delivery, clarifying what vacation courts can legitimately hear becomes essential to maximising judicial resources.