Kojo Oppong Nkrumah challenges Chief Justice directive on legal vacation at the Supreme Court

Member of Parliament for Ofoase Ayirebi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, has gone to the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Chief Justice to allow some judges to sit and hear selected criminal cases during the legal vacation.

In a writ filed at the Supreme Court, Mr Oppong Nkrumah is asking the court to declare the warrants issued by the Chief Justice for the judges to sit during the legal vacation unconstitutional, null and void.

He argues that the directive is inconsistent with Articles 17(1) and (2), 23 and 296(a) and (b) of the 1992 Constitution, which provide for equality, fairness and the proper exercise of discretionary powers.

The MP is also challenging the decision to prioritise what he describes as “special criminal cases” during the legal vacation while other criminal cases are not heard.

He argues that the practice amounts to selective justice and violates the constitutional principle of equal treatment.

Mr Oppong Nkrumah further contends that the directive affects the right to health of members of the Ghana Bar and the Judicial Service who are required to work during the legal vacation.

He is therefore asking the Supreme Court to declare the directive inconsistent with Articles 24(1) and (2) and 36(10) of the Constitution, which deal with working conditions and the protection of workers.

The MP is challenging Order 79 Rules 1(1) and 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47).

He wants the court to declare the provisions unconstitutional to the extent that they allow the Chief Justice to select cases for hearing during legal vacations in the same manner as ordinary court sittings.

Mr Oppong Nkrumah has brought the case in his capacity as a Ghanaian citizen, a Member of Parliament and a lawyer.

The Chief Justice and the Attorney General have been named as the defendants in the case and have been directed to file their respective statements of case within 14 days after being served with the plaintiff’s case.

He is asking the Supreme Court to issue any further orders or directions it considers necessary to give effect to its decision.

By: Jacob Aggrey