Is Efua Ghartey’s Stance in Support of NPP-Linked Law Firms Against Legal Vacation Sitting a National Interest or A Parochial Partisan Interest?

The annual August-September legal vacation, historically a quiet interlude for Ghana’s judiciary, has devolved into a fiery national debate over accountability, political privilege, and professional boundaries. At the center of this gathering storm is the National President of the Ghana Bar Association (GBA), Mrs. Efua Ghartey.

Her formal petition to Chief Justice His Lordship Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, vehemently protesting directives that force lawyers to conduct full criminal trials during the recess, has sparked intense public scrutiny.

As the Bar and the Bench lock horns, a polarizing question dominates the political landscape: Is the GBA truly defending the rule of law, or is its leadership using institutional tradition to shield powerful and political party figures from swift justice?

The Catalyst: High-Profile Trials in the Crosshairs

The controversy erupted when the Chief Justice issued administrative directives authorizing selected courts to sit for full trials during the legal vacation. The target of these sittings was clear: high-profile, part-heard criminal cases involving massive financial crimes and corruption allegations against the state.

The GBA swiftly kicked against the move. In her petition, Mrs. Ghartey argued that forcing lawyers to appear in courts during legal vacation sitting violates statutory rest periods under C.I. 47, disrupts professional rejuvenation, and borders on “selective justice.”

However, public suspicion intensified when the prominent law firms leading the rebellion against the directives were identified. Defense chambers like Zoe, Akyea & Co and Dame & Partners, both heavily linked to top-tier legal and political actors within the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP), vehemently objected to the continuous sittings.

To critics, the GBA’s immediate intervention felt less like a defense of ordinary lawyers and more like an elite shield deployed for politically connected firms handling sensitive state-versus-individual battles.

The Case for Parochial Partisan Interest

Detractors argue that the GBA’s rigid adherence to the vacation calendar directly harms the public interest. For years, ordinary Ghanaians have watched high-profile corruption trials drag on for semesters due to endless technicalities, strategic illness, and constant applications for adjournment.

The State, through Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, launched a sharp public counter-offensive. In a rebuttal titled “Legal vacations and trials: Why the GBA President is in error,” Dr. Srem-Sai stated that the GBA’s stance lacks sound legal or procedural foundation.

He asserted that judges, not lawyers, control court schedules, and that the annual vacation represents a reduced workload, not an absolute shutdown of justice.

From this perspective, the GBA’s attempt to halt trials for two full months leaves vital public interest cases in an unacceptable legal limbo. Critics assert that by going to bat for NPP-aligned chambers, Mrs. Ghartey’s stance serves a parochial partisan interest.

It allows accused political elites to stall their trials, pushing verdicts further down the road while ordinary citizens remain subject to a fast-moving, unforgiving judicial system.

The Case for Broad National Interest

Conversely, defenders of Efua Ghartey insist that framing her petition through a partisan lens is a dangerous distortion of her mandate. As the leader of the Bar, her primary responsibility is to protect the institutional integrity of the legal profession and uphold the regulations that govern it.

Supporters argue that the legal vacation is a statutory right under C.I. 47, designed to prevent systemic burnout among judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel alike.

Allowing the Chief Justice to unilaterally dismantle this framework sets a perilous precedent. If administrative directives can casually override statutory rules today to pursue unpopular political actors, the same tool can be weaponized against political dissidents or ordinary citizens tomorrow.

Furthermore, a rushed trial during a period when lawyers have pre-scheduled breaks or limited chamber staff compromises the constitutional right to a fair trial and adequate defense.

From this viewpoint, Mrs. Ghartey is serving a profound national interest: ensuring that the state’s eagerness to prosecute does not trample upon the institutional checks, balances, and procedural rule of law that protect every Ghanaian.

A Fractured Fraternity

The unfolding brouhaha exposes a deep, philosophical split in Ghana’s governance architecture. It pits a traditionalist Bar determined to guard its professional boundaries against a reformist public demanding that the wheels of justice grind faster for the powerful.

Whether Efua Ghartey’s leadership is viewed as a shield for partisan interests or a sword for institutional order depends entirely on which side of the political divide one stands.

What remains undeniable is that this feud has forced a critical conversation regarding who the legal system ultimately serves: the professionals who operate within it, or the citizens awaiting its accountability.

By: Franklin ASARE-DONKOH