The Supreme Court has dismissed an injunction application by Ofoase-Ayirebi MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah seeking to suspend criminal proceedings scheduled to be heard during the legal vacation.
The application sought to prevent the affected trials from proceeding pending the determination of a substantive case challenging the constitutionality of warrants issued by the Chief Justice, authorising some High Court judges to sit during the legal vacation.
Presiding over the case as a single judge, Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang held that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had not presented a sufficiently strong case to justify an injunction restraining the Chief Justice from exercising his constitutional and administrative responsibilities.
The Court also addressed the applicant’s objection to the Attorney-General representing the Chief Justice in the proceedings.
Justice Pwamang explained that the Supreme Court had previously established in the Republic v Tsatsu Tsikata case that the Chief Justice, as a public officer, could be represented by the Attorney-General in proceedings brought against him.
The Court consequently found no impropriety in the Attorney-General announcing his representation of the Chief Justice.
Article 17 argument rejected
A central argument advanced by Mr Oppong Nkrumah was that assigning criminal cases to judges during the legal vacation amounted to discrimination and violated the constitutional guarantee of equality and non-discrimination under Article 17.
The Supreme Court rejected that contention, saying there was no evidence that the Chief Justice had ordered the law to be applied differently to individuals appearing before the courts.
“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.
The Court noted that the warrants were clear that the judges were being assigned to hear cases already pending before their respective courts.
It further observed that the applicant had not alleged that the Chief Justice’s decision was based on constitutionally prohibited grounds such as colour, gender, religion or any other protected characteristic of the accused persons or witnesses involved in the cases.
The Court also pointed out that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had acknowledged that the Chief Justice had discretion to issue warrants assigning judges to conduct cases.
Court defends continuation of criminal trials
Justice Pwamang said the warrants were part of measures intended to create additional opportunities for criminal cases to be heard and determined without unnecessary delay.
The Court stressed that although certain criminal cases are not ordinarily heard during the legal vacation, that practice does not prevent the administration of justice from continuing during the period.
With the injunction application dismissed, the Chief Justice’s warrants remain in effect pending the determination of the substantive constitutional challenge.
The main case challenging the legality and constitutionality of the warrants will therefore proceed separately from the unsuccessful application for interlocutory relief.
