The Member of Parliament for Ofoase Ayirebi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, has initiated a legal challenge before the Supreme Court, demanding a reconsideration of the Chief Justice’s decision to issue administrative warrants directing High Court judges to sit and conduct criminal trials during the legal vacation period, commencing August 1st, 2026 and concluding September 30th, 2026. This action follows a complex dispute centering on the constitutionality of these warrants, which are central to the case’s legal argument.
The writ, formally filed on Friday, August 14th, 2026, names the Chief Justice, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, as the first defendant, and the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dominic Ayine, as the second defendant. Mr. Nkrumah’s assertion is a direct challenge to the Chief Justice’s authority to administer the judiciary and regulate the sittings of the courts, alleging a violation of the Constitution.
Mr. Nkrumah is invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution, seeking declarations that the administrative warrants issued by the Chief Justice are inconsistent with the Constitution and are therefore null and void. He argues that these warrants constitute ‘selective justice,’ a fundamental principle of Ghana’s constitutional order, violating the letter and spirit of Article 17(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees equal treatment and protection under the law.
“A declaration that the Honorable Chief Justice to promote and facilitate the hearing of ‘special criminal cases’ in the legal vacation to the total neglect of other criminal cases is tantamount to selective justice, which contravenes the letter and spirit of Article 17(1) of the Constitution and therefore unconstitutional, null and void,” Mr. Nkrumah stated in his opening statement. He further contends that the exercise of such administrative powers must remain subject to the Constitution.
At the heart of the case are warrants directing selected criminal cases to be heard during the legal vacation, a period of approximately 30 days, from August 1st to September 30th, 2026. Mr. Nkrumah’s statement of case highlights the practical effect of these warrants – prioritizing certain criminal cases while others remain outside the scope of the directives.
His argument is that the impugned warrants have the practical effect of giving priority to selected criminal cases while other pending criminal cases remain outside the scope of the warrants. The plaintiff is also seeking declarations that the warrants are inconsistent with the 1992 Constitution and therefore null and void. The case seeks to determine whether the Chief Justice’s decision to issue these warrants is constitutional.
The Supreme Court is expected to consider this complex legal challenge, potentially impacting the functioning of the judicial system and the interpretation of the Constitution. Legal experts suggest the case could have significant implications for the balance of power within the judiciary and the judicial process.
According to legal counsel, the case represents a significant step in safeguarding the Constitution’s principles. The legal argument centers on the principle of proportionality and fairness, arguing that the Chief Justice’s discretionary power to dictate judicial proceedings during a legal vacation should be subject to rigorous scrutiny and oversight.
The case is being brought by Mr. Oppong Nkrumah, who is representing the Plaintiff, and the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dominic Ayine, as the Defendant. The Supreme Court has indicated it will review the case and consider all the arguments presented by both sides before issuing a ruling. The legal battle underscores the ongoing debate about the balance between judicial discretion and constitutional limits in Ghana’s judicial system.”
This case underscores the importance of judicial review and the protection of fundamental constitutional rights within the legal framework of Ghana. The legal challenges suggest a fundamental disagreement about the Chief Justice’s authority to manage the judicial process during the legal vacation period.
Watch Related Video
Source: Graphic Online
