Former Information Minister and Member of Parliament for Ofoase-Ayirebi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, has invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to challenge the decision to have some criminal cases heard during the ongoing legal vacation.
Oppong Nkrumah has sued Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie and the Attorney-General, arguing that the directive to select some criminal cases for hearing during the vacation is unconstitutional.
The suit, filed at the Supreme Court on Friday, August 14, seeks declarations that the Chief Justice’s warrants directing some judges to sit during the legal vacation violate several provisions of the 1992 Constitution.
He is asking the Supreme Court to declare the warrants “inconsistent with the letter and spirit of Articles 17(1), (2), 23 and 296(a) and (b) of the Constitution, 1992 and therefore unconstitutional, null and void.”
Oppong Nkrumah is also challenging the decision to prioritise what have been described as “special criminal cases” during the legal vacation, arguing that it amounts to selective justice.
He contends that the arrangement violates the constitutional principle of equality before the law by giving priority to selected criminal cases while other criminal matters remain pending.
The MP is further seeking a declaration that compelling lawyers and judicial officers to work on the selected cases during the vacation violates their right to health and is inconsistent with Articles 24(1), (2) and 36(10) of the Constitution.
The suit also 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 permit the Chief Justice to select cases for hearing during legal vacations.
The legal vacation controversy has intensified in recent weeks following the decision to allow some substantive criminal cases to continue during the period, which runs until September 30.
