New Patriotic Party (NPP) Member of Parliament for Manhyia South, Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah, has questioned the decision to proceed with a criminal trial during the legal vacation, arguing that the issue is not the composition of the courts but the unusual decision to hear a case when such proceedings are generally not undertaken.According to the MP, the concern becomes more serious when the cases being heard during the legal vacation involve individuals associated with a particular political party.He said the practice could create perceptions of political targeting and undermine confidence in Ghana’s democratic institutions if the decision to depart from normal judicial practice is not properly explained.“The issue really is not the composition of the Constitution of legal vacation courts; that really and truly is not the issue,” Mr Baffour Awuah said.“It is an issue, or the issue really is that in the course of the legal vacation, a trial is supposed to take place. It has become an issue because it has never been done unless the parties and the lawyers agree that they want to subject themselves to that particular arrangement.”He argued that the controversy should not be reduced to a question of whether courts have the constitutional or administrative authority to sit during the period.Instead, he said the central question is whether the practice is being applied consistently and whether there is a compelling reason for departing from the normal arrangement.“Why is it that of all the criminal cases taking place in this country… these are the only cases involving politicians,” he said.Mr Baffour Awuah maintained that there are other cases before the courts involving people who previously held public office, but suggested that the manner in which particular cases are being prioritised could create suspicion.He said the judiciary must be careful to ensure that decisions concerning the scheduling of cases do not create the impression that political considerations are influencing the administration of justice.The MP warned that perceived selective application of judicial discretion could have consequences beyond the immediate cases.He argued that democratic institutions develop when public officials and institutions exercise their powers fairly and consistently, regardless of which political party is in government.“And this is how democratic institutions are developed,” he said.“If you don’t do it like that, you build a system of vindictiveness and so tomorrow, when somebody is also in office, you want to pay back.”Mr Baffour Awuah said the exercise of judicial discretion is not inherently problematic, provided there is a clear and legitimate basis for it.“When you know that it is a proper exercise of discretionary power and that there is a basis for which these cases are being done, and they are devoid of lack of candour or they are devoid of any witch-hunting, then everybody understands that there is fair play,” he said.He believes that when established practices are altered, the reasons for doing so should be sufficiently clear to prevent speculation about political motivations.“In the circumstance of this case, when generally you are trying to do something which is not done during legal vacations, and then you are also proceeding to do it in respect of persons who are connected to a particular political party, then clearly you have a problem,” he said.He argued that even where there is no improper motive, the combination of an unusual judicial arrangement and the political identity of the accused can create a perception of selective treatment.That perception, he said, should concern institutions responsible for protecting the integrity of the justice system.“If there is a basis for why these cases are being done, and they are devoid of any witch-hunting, then everybody understands that there is fair play,” he said.