“Justice delayed is justice denied” is more than a familiar maxim. It is a lived reality for countless clients navigating the courts today. In Ghana, the backlog of cases and procedural delays have become defining features of the justice system, eroding public confidence and placing heavy burdens on litigants. For clients, these delays translate into prolonged uncertainty, financial hardship, and in many cases, the denial of timely remedies to which they are entitled.

Consider the court proceedings for the murder of Joana Deladem Yabani, which officially began on February 28, 2025 at the Kumasi Circuit Court. As of late 2025, the case remained in a cycle of adjournments while the Attorney General’s final advice on the prosecution was still pending, with the primary suspect, Daniel Tuffour, still in prison custody.

Ghanaian procedural rules require courts to balance competing interests: they may adjourn hearings when necessary in the interest of justice, but parties, their lawyers, and the courts also have a duty to avoid unnecessary adjournments and ensure cases are disposed of as speedily as justice permits. Yet the question of what constitutes “unnecessary” delay remains largely unanswered by Ghanaian courts, even as other jurisdictions have successfully implemented reforms to address case backlogs.

In this interview, JURIST’s Cecile Akoeley Attiogbe Atayi speaks with Her Ladyship Justice Sedinam Awo Kwadam, a distinguished Justice of the High Court of Ghana and an adjunct lecturer in International Criminal Law and Justice at the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA). They explore the causes of delay in the Ghanaian court system, its effects on clients and the general public, and potential short- and long-term reforms.

JURIST: What do you see as the most common reasons for delays in court proceedings?

Judge Kwadam: The most common causes of delay are multifaceted. They include excessive caseloads per judge, frequent adjournments, inadequate preparation by counsel, late filing of processes, and logistical constraints such as insufficient support staff. In some instances, delays also stem from poor case screening at the commencement stage, where matters that could be resolved summarily or through alternative dispute resolution unnecessarily proceed to full trial.

JURIST: How do administrative or procedural issues contribute to case backlogs?

Judge Kwadam: Administrative inefficiencies play a significant role in case backlogs. These include poor registry management, delays in service of processes, manual record-keeping, and weak coordination between court registries and judicial officers. Procedurally, rigid adherence to form over substance, coupled with insufficient use of case management powers, often prolongs proceedings. Where administrative systems are weak, even the most diligent judicial efforts are undermined.

JURIST: To what extent do adjournments requested by lawyers or parties affect timeliness and how are these requests assessed?

Judge Kwadam: Adjournments are one of the most significant contributors to delay. While some requests are legitimate, such as those based on illness, bereavement, or unforeseen circumstances, many are avoidable and stem from lack of preparation or strategic delay. As a judge, such requests must be assessed against the interests of justice, the history of the case, the conduct of the requesting party, and the prejudice likely to be occasioned to the opposing party. Judicial firmness and consistency are essential to prevent abuse of adjournments.

JURIST: Do you think legislative or systematic reforms could reduce these delays?

Judge Kwadam: Yes, legislative and systemic reforms are crucial. Laws that empower judges with stronger case management authority, impose timelines for procedural steps, and encourage early resolution mechanisms can significantly reduce delays. Systemic reforms, such as digitisation, improved judicial staffing, and performance monitoring, are equally important. However, reforms must be accompanied by cultural change among court users and justice sector actors.

JURIST: How do prolonged cases affect clients emotionally and financially?

Judge Kwadam: Prolonged litigation imposes immense emotional and financial strain on litigants. Emotionally, it creates anxiety, uncertainty, and fatigue, often disrupting family life and mental well-being. Financially, repeated court appearances, legal fees, and loss of productive time can be devastating, particularly for individuals of modest means. Justice delayed, in many cases, becomes justice denied.

JURIST: In your experience, how, if at all, do delays affect public trust? Most especially to vulnerable groups, such as those in custody or facing urgent family matters?

Judge Kwadam: Delays erode public confidence in the justice system, especially among vulnerable groups. For persons in custody, prolonged trials may translate into extended incarceration without determination of guilt. In family and child-related matters, delays can cause irreversible harm. When the system appears slow or indifferent, public trust diminishes, and the courts are perceived as inaccessible or ineffective. People then resort to extra judicial self-help remedies, which may result in dire legal complications.

JURIST: What effects, if any, do delays have on people’s willingness to use the courts?

Judge Kwadam: Delays discourage people from seeking judicial redress. Some resort to informal or extra-legal means of dispute resolution, which may be unfair or even violent. Others abandon legitimate claims altogether. Over time, this undermines the rule of law and weakens the courts’ role as the primary forum for dispute resolution, a hallmark of every thriving democracy.

JURIST: Which reforms have reduced delays elsewhere?

Judge Kwadam: Jurisdictions that have successfully reduced delays have implemented active judicial case management, strict control of adjournments, electronic filing systems, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and specialised courts. Time standards for case disposal and continuous judicial training in caseflow management have also proven effective. In Ghana, we are still taking steps to implement all of these. I believe that with effective and a more aggressive implementation of these mechanisms, we will eventually succeed.

JURIST: What short-term and long-term steps would you prioritize to improve timely delivery of justice?

Judge Kwadam: In the short term, I would prioritise stricter case management, improved registry efficiency, firm control of adjournments, and better scheduling practices. In the long term, investment in judicial infrastructure, digital transformation, increased judicial and support staff, legislative reform, and sustained capacity-building for judges and lawyers are essential. Ultimately, timely justice requires commitment across the entire justice delivery chain.