Ghana’s Courts Are Stopping Funerals at the Last Minute Without Saying Why – JURIST – Commentary

Ghana’s own 2024 practice directions warn judges against injunctions filed days before a burial. Two recent orders — in the Daddy Lumba and Kwadwo Safo Kantanka estates — test whether that guidance is holding.

Lately, I have been asking myself: at what point do citizens start to doubt not just individual rulings, but the competency and consistency of a court itself? Pursuant to Article 125(3) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, “The judicial power of Ghana shall be vested in the judiciary; accordingly, neither the President nor Parliament nor any organ or agency of the President or Parliament shall have or be given final judicial power…” The judiciary remains one of the most important pillars of our constitutional democracy. It is the institution citizens turn to when every other avenue has failed. For that reason, consistency, predictability and procedural fairness are not optional—they are indispensable. Recent events have left many Ghanaians asking difficult questions.

First was the widely discussed proceedings relating to the late Daddy Lumba, where reports suggested that Justice Emmanuel Kofi Diaba of the Accra High Court placed a temporary injunction on the funeral of highlife music legend Daddy Lumba (Charles Kwadwo Fosu) on December 12, 2025. The application for an injunction was filed by the late musician’s maternal family against the family head (Abusuapanyin) Kofi Owusu. However, the decision granting an injunction on the funeral was revisited after the parties had already left the courtroom. The court attached a condition requiring the objecting maternal family to deposit 2 million Ghana Cedis by 2:00 PM that day to cover incurred costs, or the injunction would be vacated. Whether procedurally justified or not, such occurrences create room for public speculation and uncertainty, especially where the reasons are not immediately clear. Public confidence depends not only on justice being done but also on justice being seen to be done.

Now, another development has captured national attention. Justice Klorkor Okai-Mills at the Accra High Court granted a 10-day interim injunction on July 29, 2026, halting the funeral and burial rites of the late Apostle Professor Kwadwo Safo Kantanka in the case of Abusuapanyin Adomako Nyantakyi v Sarah Adwoa Safo and Another (Suit No. GJ/0978/2026). The injunction was granted only shortly before the scheduled funeral dates of July 30–31, 2026, following a dispute over who has the legal authority to conduct the funeral and implement the deceased’s wishes. According to Nana Kofi Safo Kantanka, lawyer for the Kristo Asafo Mission, the order was granted on an application brought by Abusuapanyin Adomako Nyantakyi, the family head, in relation to the late industrialist’s estate. He explained that the injunction temporarily prevents former Dome-Kwabenya MP and daughter of the deceased, Adwoa Safo, from organizing the funeral until the matter is determined by the court.

This naturally raises an important legal conversation — not merely an emotional one.

Under Order 25 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), the High Court has jurisdiction to grant interim injunctions where it is just and convenient to preserve the subject matter pending the determination of a dispute. The overriding considerations are whether:

• there is a serious issue to be tried;
• damages would not be an adequate remedy; and
• the balance of convenience favours preserving the status quo.

Legally, therefore, an injunction can be granted even very close to a scheduled event if the court is satisfied that the circumstances justify urgent intervention. The timing alone does not make the order unlawful. What matters is whether the applicable legal principles were properly applied and whether procedural fairness was observed.

In adherence to Order 25 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), Practice Directions For Determination Of Applications For Injunctions To Restrain Burial Of A Deceased Person 2024 provides guidance to trial courts on how to handle applications for injunctions to stop the burial of deceased persons, ensuring that such discretionary powers are exercised fairly and appropriately.

Pursuant to Rule 3 of the Practice Directions 2024, applications for injunctions should be filed promptly and supported by clear evidence showing why the injunction is necessary. Ex parte applications (without notifying the other party) made less than 14 days before the scheduled burial should generally not be entertained, except where there are extremely compelling reasons. Also, the opposing party should ordinarily be given notice of the application to ensure fairness and an opportunity to be heard, unless there are compelling reasons to proceed ex parte.

Rule 4 provides for Considerations for Granting Injunctions to Restrain Burials. It posits that when deciding whether to grant an injunction, courts should consider the following, bearing in mind that the emotional, cultural, and financial consequences of postponing a burial are often not adequately compensable by damages:

• Exercise great caution and prudence, especially where the application is filed less than 14 days before the funeral.
• Weigh the hardship, inconvenience, and financial cost imposed on the family preparing for the burial against the potential harm to the applicant.
• Recognize the importance of timely and respectful burial rites, and avoid unnecessarily disrupting funeral arrangements.
• Late applications should generally be refused unless there are compelling reasons, and the applicant may be required to provide an undertaking as to damages for losses caused by the delay.
• Consider the timing of the application, giving particular scrutiny to applications made at the last minute.
• Apply the balance of convenience by comparing the prejudice to the family if the injunction is granted with the prejudice to the applicant if it is refused.
• Assess whether the harm to the family would be irreparable.

That said, timing is not irrelevant to public perception. When courts intervene at the eleventh hour — particularly in matters of immense public interest or deeply personal family affairs — the public inevitably questions whether justice is being administered with sufficient predictability and consistency. Even where a decision is legally sound, inadequate communication of the court’s reasoning can fuel misunderstanding and diminish public trust. The judiciary does not merely decide cases; it inspires confidence in the rule of law. If the public begins to perceive judicial decisions as inconsistent, unpredictable, or procedurally confusing, the greatest casualty will not be any individual litigant — it will be confidence in the institution itself.

The judiciary’s authority ultimately rests not on the power to issue orders, but on the public’s enduring belief that its decisions are principled, transparent and fair. Look, I respect the independence of the judiciary. Courts must be allowed to decide without pressure. But the law also thrives on predictability, clarity, and public trust. When rulings appear contradictory, or wade into highly sensitive cultural spaces with little clarity on the reasoning, it creates dangerous effects including: Legal uncertainty, Public skepticism, Erosion of authority — the moment citizens stop believing “the court is the final arbiter,” we risk taking disputes to the streets instead of to the law.

Ghana’s judiciary has delivered landmark, courageous decisions over the years. That is why these moments sting more. We should be building more confidence, not less.

My question is: How do we strengthen judicial consistency and communication so that rulings are not just legally sound, but also publicly understood and respected?

Because if we don’t address this now, we will get to a point where people will doubt the competency of the court and its decisions. And no democracy can afford that.

Christina Bart-Addison is a law student at the University of Cape Coast in Ghana.