Member of Parliament for Ofoase/Ayirebi and lawyer, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, has invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to challenge the Chief Justice’s directive requiring selected High Court judges to conduct criminal trials during the 2026 legal vacation.
The suit, filed against the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General, seeks declarations that the administrative warrants directing selected judges to sit between August 1 and September 30, 2026, are inconsistent with several provisions of the 1992 Constitution and are consequently unconstitutional, null and void.
Mr. Oppong Nkrumah argues that although the Chief Justice exercises broad administrative authority over the Judiciary, the exercise of that authority remains subject to the supremacy of the Constitution.
According to his statement of case, the directive prioritises selected criminal cases for hearing during the legal vacation while excluding other pending criminal matters, without any disclosed legal basis for the distinction.
He contends that the arrangement creates an arbitrary classification among similarly situated criminal cases and persons involved in those proceedings, raising constitutional concerns over equality before the law, fair administrative action and the proper exercise of discretionary powers.
The plaintiff is specifically challenging the warrants under Articles 17(1), 23 and 296(a) and (b) of the Constitution.
Article 17 guarantees equality before the law, while Article 23 requires administrative bodies and officials to act fairly and reasonably. Article 296, meanwhile, regulates the exercise of discretionary powers by public authorities.
Health and Welfare of Lawyers, Judges and Court Staff
The suit also raises concerns about the effect of the vacation directive on lawyers, judges and Judicial Service staff involved in the selected cases.
Mr. Oppong Nkrumah argues that lawyers appearing in the affected criminal proceedings would be required to continue preparing witnesses, conducting trials, undertaking legal research and drafting submissions during a period ordinarily designated as legal vacation.
He also points to the workload imposed on judges, registrars, court clerks, interpreters, bailiffs, recorders, security personnel and other Judicial Service staff required to facilitate the proceedings.
The statement of case argues that these arrangements raise constitutional questions under Article 24(1) and (2), which provide for satisfactory working conditions, rest and holidays, as well as Article 36(10), which requires the State to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of persons in employment.
Challenge to Order 79 of C.I. 47
The suit further challenges Order 79 Rules 1(1) and 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), to the extent that the provisions are interpreted as permitting the Chief Justice to select particular cases for hearing during legal vacations in the same manner as ordinary court sittings.
Mr. Oppong Nkrumah is asking the Supreme Court to declare the provisions unconstitutional to that extent if they are found to conflict with Articles 17, 23, 24, 36 and 296 of the Constitution.
He is also seeking any further orders or directions the Supreme Court considers necessary to give effect to the declarations sought.
The case was filed pursuant to Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution, invoking the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to enforce and interpret the Constitution and determine the constitutionality of acts or omissions by public authorities.
The suit therefore places before the highest court of the land constitutional questions concerning the limits of the Chief Justice’s administrative powers, the basis for selecting particular criminal cases for hearing during the legal vacation, and the constitutional protections afforded to persons working within the justice delivery system, particularly in relation to their health and welfare.
