Oppong Nkrumah Sues Chief Justice Over ‘Selective Justice’ During Legal Vacation

Date: August 14, 2026
By: Ebenezer Adugyamfi/ Emmanuel Ayiku for GhanaianNewsCanada

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 sit and hear criminal cases during the ongoing legal vacation.

The suit, filed on Friday, August 14, 2026, names Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie as the first defendant and Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr Dominic Ayine, as the second defendant.

Mr Oppong Nkrumah, a lawyer and former Minister for Information, is invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution, asking the apex court to determine whether the directives issued by the Chief Justice are consistent with the Constitution.

At the centre of the legal challenge is the decision to allow what have been described as “special criminal cases” to proceed during the legal vacation, while other pending criminal matters are not similarly prioritised.

The legal vacation runs from August 1 to September 30, 2026, although arrangements can be made for certain matters to be heard during that period.

Mr Oppong Nkrumah argues that the manner in which the selected cases are being prioritised raises serious constitutional questions, particularly regarding equality before the law, fairness, administrative discretion and the proper exercise of judicial authority.

In his statement of case, the MP makes it clear that his challenge is not aimed at questioning the constitutional position of the Chief Justice as head of the Judiciary.

Rather, he argues that even broad administrative powers exercised by constitutional officeholders must be exercised within the limits imposed by the 1992 Constitution.

He maintains that the Constitution does not give public authorities unrestricted or unreviewable discretion and that administrative decisions must be fair, reasonable, transparent and non-arbitrary.

Oppong Nkrumah raises ‘selective justice’ concerns

A major aspect of the lawsuit is Mr Oppong Nkrumah’s contention that the current arrangement amounts to “selective justice.”

He argues that by directing selected criminal cases to be heard during the legal vacation while other pending criminal cases remain outside the scope of the warrants, the arrangement creates different treatment for people whose cases are before the courts.

The Ofoase-Ayirebi MP is therefore asking the Supreme Court to determine whether the decision to prioritise certain criminal matters during the vacation violates Article 17(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.

According to his case, the warrants have the practical effect of giving priority to selected criminal proceedings while leaving other pending criminal matters unattended.

He argues that this creates what he considers to be an arbitrary classification among similarly placed criminal cases, accused persons and litigants.

The Supreme Court is consequently being asked to examine whether the Chief Justice’s decision to issue the warrants for the selected criminal cases is constitutionally valid.

Challenge to the Chief Justice’s discretionary powers

Mr Oppong Nkrumah has also based his challenge on Article 296 of the Constitution, which regulates the exercise of discretionary power by public officials.

His argument is that although the Chief Justice has broad administrative responsibilities in managing the Judiciary and organising court sittings, those powers cannot be exercised arbitrarily.

The former Information Minister is asking the apex court to determine whether the administrative discretion exercised in selecting particular cases for hearing during the legal vacation meets the constitutional requirements governing discretionary powers.

The case could therefore have implications beyond the particular criminal cases that prompted the lawsuit.

A decision by the Supreme Court could potentially clarify the extent to which the Chief Justice can use administrative directives to prioritise particular cases during legal vacation and the constitutional limitations surrounding such decisions.

Health and welfare of lawyers and judicial officers

The lawsuit also raises concerns about the effect of the vacation directives on members of the Ghana Bar and Judicial Service who are required to participate in the special sittings.

Mr Oppong Nkrumah is relying on Articles 24(1) and (2) and 36(10) of the Constitution in arguing that the arrangements raise questions about the right to work under satisfactory, safe and healthy conditions and the constitutional obligation to protect workers’ welfare.

His case therefore goes beyond the question of which criminal cases should be heard.

It also asks the Supreme Court to consider the broader consequences of requiring judges, lawyers and judicial staff to participate in proceedings during a period designated as legal vacation.

High Court rules also come under challenge

Mr Oppong Nkrumah is further asking the Supreme Court to examine Order 79 Rules 1(1) and 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47).

He wants the court to determine whether those provisions are constitutionally valid 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.

The provisions are being challenged against several constitutional provisions, including Articles 17, 23, 24, 36 and 296.

If the Supreme Court accepts his arguments, the relevant provisions could be declared constitutionally unenforceable to the extent challenged.

A case with wider implications for Ghana’s justice system

The lawsuit comes at a time when the Judiciary’s decision to expedite certain high-profile criminal cases during the legal vacation has generated considerable debate among lawyers, politicians and members of the public.

Supporters of the special sittings could argue that cases involving serious criminal allegations should not be unnecessarily delayed simply because the courts are on vacation.

Critics, however, have questioned why particular cases should receive accelerated attention while other criminal matters remain pending.

That tension is at the heart of Mr Oppong Nkrumah’s legal challenge.

The issue is therefore not simply whether judges can sit during the legal vacation. Rather, it is whether the selection and prioritisation of particular cases can be done in a manner consistent with the constitutional guarantee of equality and the proper exercise of administrative discretion.

Chief Justice and Attorney-General to respond

The suit has been brought against both the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General, giving the two defendants an opportunity to respond to the constitutional claims.

Under the terms of the writ, the defendants are required to file their respective statements of case within 14 days after being served with the plaintiff’s case.

Until the Supreme Court determines the matter, the claims contained in Mr Oppong Nkrumah’s writ remain arguments advanced by the plaintiff and have not been judicially established.

The Chief Justice and the Attorney-General will have the opportunity to present their positions before the court.

What the Supreme Court could determine

The case could become an important constitutional test of the relationship between the administrative authority of the Chief Justice and the constitutional protections surrounding equality and fairness.

If the Supreme Court rules in favour of Mr Oppong Nkrumah, it could place new limits on how cases are selected for hearing during legal vacations.

If the court rejects the challenge, it could provide important clarification on the Chief Justice’s authority to organise special sittings and prioritise cases where the Judiciary considers it necessary.

Either outcome could have implications for future legal vacations and the administration of criminal justice in Ghana.

For now, the case adds another significant dimension to the growing debate over the Judiciary’s handling of criminal cases and the extent to which administrative decisions within the justice system must be subjected to constitutional scrutiny.

As the matter proceeds, attention will be focused on the response of the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General and, ultimately, on how the Supreme Court interprets the constitutional limits on judicial administrative discretion and the principle of equality before the law.