The Member of Parliament for Ofoase Ayirebi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, has filed a suit at the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of administrative warrants issued by the Chief Justice directing selected High Court judges to hear criminal cases during the 2026 legal vacation.
The writ, filed on Friday, August 14, 2026, names Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie as the first defendant and the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dominic Ayine, as the second defendant.
Oppong Nkrumah is invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution. He is seeking declarations that the administrative warrants issued by the Chief Justice are inconsistent with the Constitution and should therefore be declared null and void.
Among the reliefs sought, the MP argued: “A declaration that the action of the Honourable 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 1992 and therefore unconstitutional, null and void.”
The case centres on administrative warrants authorising selected criminal cases to be heard during the legal vacation, which runs from August 1 to September 30, 2026.
In his statement of case, Oppong Nkrumah stressed that his action does not challenge the Chief Justice’s constitutional authority to administer the Judiciary or regulate court sittings.
“The Plaintiff readily acknowledges that the office of the Chief Justice occupies a unique constitutional position as the head of the Judiciary and is entrusted with broad administrative responsibilities for the effective and efficient functioning of the courts,” the statement said.
However, he argues that those administrative powers must always be exercised within the limits of the Constitution.
“It is a cardinal principle of Ghana’s constitutional order that every constitutional power, however extensive, is subject to the supremacy of the Constitution,” he said.
The statement further argues: “The Constitution does not recognise absolute or unreviewable discretionary power. Every public authority, including the Chief Justice, must exercise administrative and discretionary powers in a manner that is fair, reasonable, transparent, non-arbitrary and consistent with the Constitution.”
Oppong Nkrumah contends that the warrants effectively give priority to selected criminal cases while leaving other pending criminal matters outside their scope.
“The impugned warrants have the practical effect of according priority to selected criminal cases while other pending criminal cases remain outside the scope of the warrants.”
He further argues that the arrangement creates an arbitrary distinction among criminal proceedings, accused persons and litigants who are similarly situated.
The MP is therefore asking the Supreme Court to determine whether the Chief Justice’s decision to issue administrative warrants directing selected High Court judges to hear criminal cases during the legal vacation is consistent with the 1992 Constitution.
He is also seeking declarations that the warrants issued for the period August 1 to September 30, 2026, are unconstitutional, null and void.
Legal vacation
Legal vacation is a designated period during which the workload of the superior courts is significantly reduced to allow judges, lawyers and judicial staff to rest while ensuring that the courts remain operational.
In Ghana, the second and longest legal vacation runs from August 1 to September 30. During this period, selected courts continue to hear matters, particularly urgent cases, meaning legal vacation does not amount to a complete suspension of court proceedings.
