Inside Oppong Nkrumah's suit against CJ over legal vacation

Ofoase-Ayirebi MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah has filed a suit at the Supreme Court challenging the Chief Justice’s decision to direct selected judges to hear designated criminal cases during the legal vacation.

The action, filed against the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General, invokes the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution.

Mr Oppong Nkrumah, who brings the case as a citizen, Member of Parliament and lawyer, is asking the apex court to declare the directives unconstitutional, null and void.

His case centres on whether the selection of certain criminal cases for hearing during the legal vacation is consistent with constitutional principles on equality, fairness, administrative discretion and workers’ welfare.

According to the writ, the MP wants the Supreme Court to determine whether warrants issued by the Chief Justice requiring some judges to sit during the legal vacation comply with Articles 17(1) and (2), 23 and 296(a) and (b) of the Constitution.

He argues that the arrangement raises concerns about equality before the law and protection against discriminatory treatment.

A key part of the suit is the claim that giving priority to what have been described as “special criminal cases” during the legal vacation, while other criminal matters are not given the same treatment, amounts to unequal treatment.

Mr Oppong Nkrumah is therefore asking the Supreme Court to declare that such prioritisation, if found to have the effect alleged, violates Article 17(1) of the Constitution.

He also contends that the directives raise questions about the proper exercise of discretionary power by public authorities under Article 296.

The MP wants the court to examine whether the Chief Justice’s discretion in selecting cases for vacation sittings was exercised fairly, reasonably and in accordance with constitutionally required standards.

The suit further challenges the effect of the directives on lawyers and judicial service staff required to participate in the selected vacation trials.

Mr Oppong Nkrumah argues that the arrangement may affect the health, welfare and working conditions of members of the Ghana Bar and the Judicial Service.

He is relying on Articles 24(1), 24(2) and 36(10) of the Constitution, which relate to satisfactory, safe and healthy conditions of work and the protection of workers’ welfare.

The writ also places the High Court rules on vacation sittings before the Supreme Court.

Mr Oppong Nkrumah is seeking a declaration that Order 79 Rules 1(1) and 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, C.I. 47, are 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.

He argues that, to that extent, the rules are inconsistent with Articles 17(1), 17(2), 23, 24(1), 24(2), 36(10) and 296(a) and (b) of the Constitution.

The case comes amid continuing debate over court sittings during the legal vacation and the decision to allow selected high-profile criminal trials to proceed during the period.

The legal vacation is generally a period when the regular work of the superior courts is reduced, although the rules allow arrangements to be made for some matters to be heard.

Mr Oppong Nkrumah’s case is not only about whether courts may sit during vacation.

It also asks whether the manner in which particular cases are selected and prioritised satisfies the constitutional requirements of equality, fairness and proper exercise of discretion.

The former Information Minister is also asking the Supreme Court to make any further orders it considers necessary to give effect to its declarations.

The writ directs the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General to file their statements of case within 14 days after service of the plaintiff’s case.

The claims remain allegations and constitutional arguments advanced by the plaintiff until the Supreme Court determines the matter.

The Chief Justice and the Attorney-General are expected to respond to the suit in their respective statements of case.