The right of workers to embark on strike action is a recognised feature of industrial relations. For generations, workers have resorted to strikes as a legitimate means of expressing their grievances and exerting pressure on employers to improve their working conditions, remuneration and other terms of employment.
But strike actions, whenever they occur, inevitably leave some people at the receiving end. While the grievances of workers may be legitimate, the interruption of the services they provide often has consequences for members of the public who have little or no control over the circumstances giving rise to the industrial action. Some of these consequences are not immediately apparent until one finds oneself directly affected by the interruption of a particular service.
One such service is the administration of justice. For many people, the work of the Judicial Service may not feature prominently in their everyday lives until they have a case to pursue, a dispute to resolve, a right to enforce or an application awaiting determination before a court. Yet, behind the daily operations of the courts are matters involving people’s liberty, property, family relationships, businesses and livelihoods. When the machinery that supports the administration of justice is interrupted, these interests may be left hanging.
Against this background, the indefinite strike declared by the Judicial Service Staff Association of Ghana (JUSAG) deserves attention beyond the disagreement that has occasioned it. While the association and the government work towards resolving their differences, what happens to the numerous cases awaiting attention before the courts? More importantly, what becomes of the people whose lives and interests are tied to the outcomes of those cases?
The Strike and the Appeal
JUSAG commenced an indefinite strike on Monday, November 2, 2026, following the government’s failure to approve the proposed review of salaries and related allowances for Judicial Service staff.
Announcing the decision on Friday, October 30, the association’s General Secretary, Abdulai Yakubu, said the government had failed to meet the deadline set for approval of the revised conditions of service. He explained that the association had made several attempts since December 2025 to secure approval of the proposed review, without success. The association was also demanding payment of the revised salaries in November, together with arrears covering January to October 2026.
The announcement was followed by an appeal from the Judicial Secretary, Musah Ahmed, who urged the association’s leadership and members to reconsider the industrial action and return to work while management continued engagements with relevant government stakeholders.
In a circular dated October 31, the Judicial Secretary said management was engaged in high-level, good-faith negotiations aimed at securing a fair and sustainable outcome that recognised the contributions of JUSAG members. He appealed to the association to consider the larger national interest and allow the discussions to continue without the interruption of court services.
Beyond the Strike: The Interests at Stake
The administration of justice is not an abstract institutional activity. It is a service through which people seek remedies for wrongs, enforce their rights and resolve disputes that may have profound consequences for their lives. Consider, for instance, an accused person who has applied for bail and is awaiting the court’s decision. Depending on the circumstances, the interruption of court proceedings may mean additional days or weeks in custody.
The same can be said of persons involved in civil proceedings. A creditor pursuing a debt recovery action may be unable to recover money owed. A business awaiting the resolution of a contractual dispute may continue to suffer financial uncertainty. A person seeking to protect an interest in land or other property may have to wait longer for a determination that could affect the use, possession or ownership of that property.
Family and domestic disputes present another dimension. Proceedings involving child custody, maintenance, matrimonial property and other family matters often concern people in vulnerable circumstances. Delays in resolving such disputes may prolong uncertainty and hardship for parties, including children, whose welfare may depend on timely judicial intervention.
There are also employment disputes, tenancy matters, inheritance claims and applications for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Each represents a person or group of persons who has approached the courts expecting the legal system to provide a remedy. The interruption of court services potentially leaves these interests in a state of uncertainty.
The administration of justice therefore has an economic and social dimension that is sometimes overlooked. The ability of the courts to function affects not only the parties before them but also the wider community.
One case that may be affected by the interruption of court services is the bail application filed by former New Patriotic Party Ashanti Regional Chairman, Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi. An Accra High Court is scheduled to deliver its ruling on Wednesday, November 4, 2026, on his application for bail pending appeal against his conviction and 20-year prison sentence for illegal mining-related offences.
While the Wontumi case has attracted considerable public attention, it is only one example of the many proceedings that may be affected. Across the country, individuals and businesses have cases pending before different levels of the court system. Some are awaiting judgments; others are waiting for applications to be determined, witnesses to be heard or proceedings to continue. For many of these litigants, the cases may not attract public attention, but their outcomes are no less significant to the people involved.
The absence of a high-profile name does not diminish the importance of a case to the person whose liberty, property, family or livelihood is at stake.
The Need for a Swift Resolution
The concerns raised by JUSAG over the proposed review of salaries and allowances deserve serious consideration. The effective administration of justice depends significantly on the commitment and welfare of the people who work within the Judicial Service. Court registrars, clerks, interpreters, administrative officers and other support personnel perform essential functions that enable the courts to operate. Their contributions cannot be overlooked in discussions about improving the justice delivery system.
At the same time, the public interest in the uninterrupted administration of justice cannot be ignored. The people whose cases are pending before the courts did not create the disagreement between JUSAG and the government. Yet, they may bear a considerable part of its consequences.
The resolution of the impasse must therefore be treated with urgency. Government and Judicial Service management must make every reasonable effort to address the concerns of the association, while JUSAG must also remain conscious of the wider implications of an extended interruption of court services. The Judicial Secretary’s appeal provides an opportunity for the parties to return to the negotiating table and find a workable resolution. That opportunity should not be allowed to slip away.
For the success of the justice delivery system is measured not merely by the existence of courts, judges and laws, but by the ability of people to access those courts and obtain timely remedies. Behind every case file is a person waiting for an outcome that may change the course of their life.
