Member of Parliament for Ofoase Ayirebi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, has invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to challenge the administrative powers of the Chief Justice in directing selected judges to sit during the 2026 legal vacation.
The suit, filed on Friday, August 14, 2026, named the Attorney-General as the 2nd Defendant.
According to the writ, the legal vacation of the Superior Courts is prescribed pursuant to Section 80(2)(g) of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), which empowers the Rules of Court Committee to make rules regulating court sittings and vacation periods.
The Plaintiff averred that pursuant to the administrative authority vested in his office, the Chief Justice, cited as the 1st Defendant, issued warrants directing specified judges of the High Court to sit and conduct criminal trials during the legal vacation period commencing August 1 and ending September 30, 2026.
The said warrant, according to the MP, authorised the designated judges to hear and determine selected criminal cases during the vacation, notwithstanding the general vacation period applicable to the High Court. He contends that the warrant did not provide any legal basis for why some criminal cases were selected while others were excluded.
The Attorney-General is sued as the principal legal adviser to Government under Article 88 of the Constitution.
Mr. Oppong Nkrumah argued that the effect of the warrant is that accused persons whose cases were selected will have their matters heard ahead of others whose cases remain pending but were not selected. Similarly, complainants and victims in the selected cases benefit from expedited attention without any disclosed criteria.
He contended that the warrant introduces arbitrary differentiation among similarly situated criminal cases and gives rise to an appearance of unequal treatment, in violation of constitutional guarantees of equality before the law, fair administrative action and limitations on discretionary power.
The suit further argued that the directive has implications for judges, lawyers and judicial service staff including registrars, clerks, interpreters and recorders who are required to remain actively engaged throughout a period designated for vacation, recuperation and professional preparation.
The Plaintiff said this raises questions under Articles 24(1) and (2) and 36(10) of the Constitution on the right to health and welfare of workers.
Reliefs Sought
The Plaintiff is seeking among others:
a. A declaration that the warrants directing some judges to sit during the legal vacation are inconsistent with Articles 17(1), (2), 23 and 296(a) and (b) of the 1992 Constitution and therefore unconstitutional, null and void;
b. A declaration that the action to promote hearing of “special criminal cases” during vacation to the neglect of other criminal cases amounts to selective justice in contravention of Article 17(1);
c. A declaration that the warrants violate the right to health of members of the Bar and Judicial Service affected by the directive and are inconsistent with Articles 24(1), (2) and 36(10);
d. A declaration that Order 79 Rules 1(1) and 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) to the extent that they allow the Chief Justice to select some cases for hearing during vacation as ordinary sittings, are inconsistent with Articles 17(1), (2), 23, 24(1), (2), 36(10) and 296(a) and (b); and e. Any other orders the Court deems appropriate.
The Supreme Court is yet to fix a date for hearing.
Source: www.kumasimail.com
