Dame warns against forcing Hanan to defend himself in court
A fresh dispute has emerged over the ongoing legal vacation hearings after former Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame argued that no accused person should be pushed into conducting a criminal trial without a lawyer.
The senior lawyer, who represents former National Food Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO) Chief Executive Officer Hanan Abdul-Hamid, says any attempt to compel his client to proceed without legal counsel would undermine a constitutionally protected right and create far-reaching consequences for Ghana’s justice system.
His remarks come amid growing controversy over the decision to continue selected criminal cases during the judicial vacation, a move that has already attracted legal challenges and criticism from some defence lawyers.
Speaking after court proceedings on Monday, Dame insisted that an accused person’s right to choose legal representation cannot be overridden by administrative decisions regarding court schedules. He argued that legal representation is a fundamental safeguard in criminal proceedings and should not be treated as optional simply because a case has been fixed for hearing.
The former Attorney General’s comments were prompted by recent developments in another high-profile criminal case, where a court indicated that accused persons could be required to continue cross-examining witnesses themselves if their lawyers failed to appear.
Dame, however, suggested that such a scenario would raise serious constitutional questions, particularly where a defendant has already retained counsel who objects to participating in proceedings during the legal vacation.
For him, the issue is no longer only about Hanan Abdul-Hamid’s case. It has become part of a wider debate over how far courts can go in managing criminal trials when defence lawyers challenge the timing of proceedings.
He maintained that his legal team remains opposed to vacation sittings in the matter and believes pending applications before higher courts should be determined before the trial moves forward.
The disagreement adds another layer to an increasingly contentious legal battle over the handling of selected criminal prosecutions during the court recess. With related cases already before appellate courts, upcoming rulings could have implications beyond the immediate parties and help define the limits of judicial discretion during vacation periods.
As the legal wrangling continues, the central question remains whether the administration of justice can justify proceeding with a criminal trial when a defendant’s chosen lawyer refuses to participate. For Dame, the answer is clear: the right to legal representation must remain protected regardless of the stage of proceedings.
Source: myjoyonline.com
About The Author
