The criminal trials involving former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahen and Abdul-Hanan Wahab have run into a procedural dispute after their lawyers challenged the decision to hear the cases during the ongoing judicial legal vacation.
The two defence teams have separately petitioned the Chief Justice, objecting to the authorisation granted for Justice Francis Achibonga to continue proceedings during the court recess.
Counsel for Abdul-Hanan Wahab, led by former Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame, and lawyers for Kwabena Adu-Boahen, headed by Samuel Atta Akyea, argue that commencing substantive criminal trials during the vacation goes against established judicial practice and the rules governing court sittings.
In letters dated August 5, the lawyers informed the Chief Justice that they would not participate in proceedings scheduled during the vacation period and urged a review of the directive.
According to Mr Dame, the trial judge informed parties at the previous sitting that he had received authorisation to hear the case during the vacation and advised that any objections should be directed to the Chief Justice.
The former Attorney-General argued that the trial had not begun before the legal vacation and therefore should not have been listed for hearing during the recess.
He maintained that vacation courts traditionally deal with motions rather than substantive trials.
“A Justice of the High Court may be permitted to sit and hear only motions in the legal vacation. In accordance with this practice, vacation courts are held throughout the country for motions only,” Mr Dame stated.
He further argued that conducting the trial without the consent of the parties was improper.
“The warrant for Justice Achibonga to commence the hearing of the instant criminal matter, without the consent of the parties in the matter, is thus most irregular and contrary to law,” he added.
Mr Dame also raised concerns that selecting only a few criminal cases for hearing during the vacation could create perceptions of unequal treatment.
“The handpicking of a few criminal cases from among the many hundreds of criminal cases around the Greater Accra Region for hearing during the vacation is unprecedented and may hint at discriminatory treatment,” he stated.
Similarly, Mr Atta Akyea, counsel for Kwabena Adu-Boahen, argued that there were no exceptional circumstances requiring the trial to proceed during the judicial recess.
He said the decision would disrupt professional commitments of lawyers who had worked throughout the legal year and planned their schedules around the vacation period.
“Regrettably, Your Lordship, we are unable to attend the said sittings during the legal vacation as this direction will necessitate the lawyers of the accused persons in this matter to work beyond the legal year and during the legal vacation, while other lawyers rest,” Mr Atta Akyea wrote.
He added that members of his firm had already made travel and other professional arrangements during the break.
The lawyers also contended that the directive could affect their clients’ constitutional right to adequate legal representation, as members of their defence teams may be unavailable due to prior commitments.
Justice Francis Achibonga had adjourned the two separate cases to August 11 and 12, 2026, after receiving authorisation from the Chief Justice to sit during the legal vacation.
The objections by the defence teams now place the continuation of the hearings under scrutiny, with attention focused on whether the Chief Justice will review the directive or allow the scheduled proceedings to proceed.
