Legal practitioner questions judiciary's 'selective urgency' in vacation trials
Private legal practitioner Amanda Akuokor Clinton has called on the Judiciary to explain what she terms "selective urgency" in proceeding with certain high-profile criminal trials during the legal vacation. While acknowledging the courts' authority to sit during this period, Clinton expressed concern that continuing politically sensitive criminal cases in the absence of some lawyers and accused persons could compromise the right to a fair trial. She stated that this issue has evolved from an administrative decision into a constitutional matter, potentially giving accused persons grounds to challenge proceedings under Article 19 of the 1992 Constitution. Clinton emphasized that if vacation courts are for general continuity, it is understandable, but if only politically sensitive criminal trials are moving at full speed while other cases are dormant, the Judiciary must provide objective criteria. She urged trial judges to consider objections from counsel regarding availability and to take the constitutional right to a fair trial into account, suggesting that postponing complex criminal cases for a few months would not necessarily cause significant prejudice, especially when the liberty and finances of accused persons are at stake.
