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 legal vacation.
The writ, filed on Friday, August 14, 2026, names Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie as the first defendant and Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Dominic Ayine as the second defendant.
Mr 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.
A key part of his case is that the arrangement amounts to “selective justice” because it gives priority to certain criminal cases while excluding other pending cases.
“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.”
Challenge centres on legal vacation warrants
The case concerns warrants directing selected criminal cases to be heard during the legal vacation, which runs from August 1 to September 30, 2026.
Mr Oppong Nkrumah stressed that his action was not challenging the Chief Justice’s constitutional authority to administer the Judiciary or regulate the sittings of the courts.
“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 the exercise of those administrative powers must comply with 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 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,” the statement added.
‘Priority to selected criminal cases’
Mr Oppong Nkrumah contends that the warrants effectively give priority to selected criminal cases while other pending criminal matters are left outside the arrangement.
“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 said.
He further argues that the arrangement creates what he describes as an arbitrary distinction between similarly placed criminal proceedings, accused persons and litigants.
The MP is therefore asking the Supreme Court to determine whether the Chief Justice acted within the Constitution by issuing the warrants directing selected High Court judges to hear criminal cases during the legal vacation.
He is also seeking declarations that the warrants covering the period from August 1 to September 30, 2026, are inconsistent with the 1992 Constitution and are consequently null and void.
