The Supreme Court has dismissed an application by Ofoase-Ayirebi lawmaker Kojo Oppong Nkrumah seeking to stop the High Court from conducting selected criminal trials during the ongoing legal vacation, ruling that he had failed to establish grounds for an injunction.
Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, sitting as a single judge, said the application did not raise sufficiently serious constitutional considerations to justify restraining the Chief Justice from assigning judges to hear cases during the vacation.
The case challenges the constitutionality of administrative warrants issued by the Chief Justice allowing some High Court judges to hear criminal matters during the period.
The court rejected Mr Oppong Nkrumah’s argument that the arrangement violated Article 17 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality and non-discrimination.
“I am unable to see how the directive assigning cases to be heard during the legal vacation can be said to be discriminatory,” the Court held.
It said there was no evidence that the Chief Justice had directed that the law be applied differently based on constitutionally prohibited grounds such as colour, gender or religion.
The court also found nothing improper in the Attorney-General representing the Chief Justice, citing an earlier Supreme Court decision involving Tsatsu Tsikata.
Justice Pwamang said the warrants were intended to create opportunities for criminal cases to be heard and determined expeditiously.
“The fact that some criminal cases are not being heard during the legal vacation does not mean that the administration of justice would not be advanced to some extent.
“The fact that accused persons facing criminal prosecution do not usually take place during legal vacation ought not to be the ground for injuncting the Chief Justices effort at enduring a speedy hearing of cases such as galamsey, narcotics,” Justice Pwamang.
The substantive constitutional challenge will proceed separately.
Mr Oppong Nkrumah said his legal team would study the ruling before deciding its next move and indicated he could seek a review.
“We’ve asked for a certified copy so that we can peruse it some more and then on the advice of counsel we’ll take the next steps,” he said.
Asked whether he would seek a review, he said: “Very much so, very much so, but we’ll consider it.”
