Adoa News Adoa News
The Supreme Court has dismissed an injunction application filed by Ofoase Ayirebi Member of Parliament, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, seeking to suspend proceedings arising from warrants issued by the Chief Justice allowing some High Court judges to conduct criminal trials during the legal vacation.
The Court, presided over by Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, held that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had failed to establish a sufficiently strong case to justify an injunction against the Chief Justice’s exercise of his constitutional and administrative powers.
The ruling means the substantive case challenging the constitutionality of the warrants will proceed separately from the unsuccessful application for interlocutory relief.
Court upholds Attorney-General’s representation
In its ruling, the Court also addressed the applicant’s objection to the Attorney-General representing the Chief Justice in the proceedings.
The Court relied on its previous decision in Republic v Tsatsu Tsikata, noting that the Chief Justice, as a public official, may be represented by the Attorney-General in proceedings brought against him.
It therefore found nothing improper in the Attorney-General announcing his representation of the Chief Justice.
Court rejects discrimination argument
A central argument by Mr Oppong Nkrumah was that assigning criminal cases to judges during the legal vacation violated the constitutional guarantee of equality and non-discrimination under Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution.
The Court rejected the argument, saying there was no evidence that the Chief Justice had directed the law to be applied differently to persons 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 Mr Oppong Nkrumah himself had acknowledged that the Chief Justice had discretion to issue warrants assigning judges to conduct cases.
It further observed that the warrants were clear in stating that the judges were expected to hear cases pending before their respective courts.
According to the Court, the applicant had also not alleged that the Chief Justice’s decision was influenced by the colour, gender, religion or any other constitutionally prohibited characteristic of accused persons or witnesses appearing before the courts.
Warrants intended to expedite criminal cases
The Supreme Court further held that the warrants formed part of efforts to create opportunities for more criminal cases to be heard and determined expeditiously.
It stressed that although some criminal cases may not ordinarily be heard during the legal vacation, that did not mean the administration of justice could not be advanced during the period.
Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, sitting as a single judge, consequently dismissed the injunction application.
The substantive constitutional challenge to the Chief Justice’s warrants will now continue independently of the application for interlocutory relief.