Lawyer Samuel Atta Akyea has defended his decision to stay away from court during Ghana’s legal vacation, saying his position is grounded in established judicial practice and should not be interpreted as an attempt to delay the trial of former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahen.
The lawyer, who represents former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahen, addressed the issue on Eyewitness News on Tuesday, August 11, 2026, following his absence from the ongoing trial.
His comments come amid concerns raised by the Ghana Bar Association over court sittings during the legal vacation.
Atta Akyea challenges approach to vacation sittings
Mr Atta Akyea cited Order 79 of C.I. 47 in support of his position. However, the precise application of the vacation provisions to the ongoing criminal proceedings remains a matter of legal interpretation.
He argued that the provision should be applied in circumstances that justify court proceedings during the vacation.
According to him, his more than three decades of legal practice have not led him to regard the vacation period as an ordinary time for compelling lawyers to continue with part-heard cases.
He maintained that his absence should therefore not be interpreted as an unwillingness to perform his duties as counsel.
“I’m not a lazy lawyer. I’m not running away from a criminal case. I’ve done more serious criminal cases than what I’m going through,” Mr Atta Akyea said.
He added that his position was intended to uphold what he described as established practice between the Bench and lawyers.
Ghana Bar Association concerns form part of dispute
The disagreement is taking place against the backdrop of concerns raised by the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) over directives requiring some lawyers to appear before designated judges during the legal vacation.
Mr Atta Akyea questioned why some part-heard criminal cases should proceed during the vacation while other serious criminal matters remain pending.
He specifically referred to cases involving offences such as murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery while making the argument for consistency in how vacation sittings are handled.
“What about the rest of the murder cases in the realm? Manslaughter cases, rape cases, are these criminal cases of no consequence to the state?” he asked.
His comments represent his position on the application of legal vacation arrangements and should not be taken as a determination by the court on the legal issues he raised.
Court directive follows lawyer’s absence
The immediate dispute is connected to the trial of Mr Adu-Boahen and his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng.
According to ModernGhana and Citi Newsroom, Presiding Judge Justice Francis Achibonga indicated that the two accused persons could be required to continue the cross-examination of Prosecution Witness 4 if their lawyer failed to appear at the next sitting.
The indication followed Mr Atta Akyea’s absence from court on Tuesday, August 11.
The case involves the former NSB boss, who has been facing proceedings in connection with allegations relating to public funds. The accused persons are presumed innocent unless proven guilty by a court.
What the legal vacation rules provide
Ghana’s Judicial Service officially identifies the long vacation for the superior courts as running from August 1 to the last day of September each year.
The rules also provide mechanisms through which court sittings can be scheduled during vacation when circumstances require. The provision cited by Mr Atta Akyea is contained in Order 79 of C.I. 47.
However, the precise application of legal vacation rules to ongoing criminal proceedings is a matter that requires careful legal interpretation. A recent legal analysis published by Graphic Online has also highlighted distinctions between the civil procedure rules containing the vacation provisions and the rules governing criminal proceedings.
Adu-Boahen trial remains ongoing
The case against Mr Adu-Boahen has involved continued examination of prosecution witnesses.
Earlier reporting by the Ghana News Agency recorded that Mr Atta Akyea had cross-examined prosecution witnesses during the proceedings. The GNA reported in July that he represented the accused persons during the cross-examination of an Economic and Organised Crime Office investigator.
The latest disagreement therefore centers not on whether Mr Atta Akyea has represented the accused in the proceedings, but on whether the trial should continue during the legal vacation and the circumstances surrounding his absence.
The next court sitting and any further directions from the presiding judge will determine how the proceedings proceed.
