The plaintiff, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah in a constitutional case involving the conduct of criminal trials during Ghana’s legal vacation has been accused by the Deputy Attorney-General, Justice Srem Sai of making what he describes as a deliberate falsehood in court regarding the alleged selection of cases for hearing.
The dispute centres on the plaintiff’s first relief, which seeks a declaration that warrants issued by the Chief Justice authorising certain judges to sit during the legal vacation to conduct criminal trials in “selected cases” are inconsistent with Articles 17(1) and (2), 23 and 296(a) and (b) of the 1992 Constitution.
The Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice made this accusation in a Facebook post after the Supreme Court ruled on the matter
According to the Deputy A-G, the relief specifically challenges the alleged decision to have some criminal cases heard during the legal vacation.
However, in his affidavit in opposition, the Attorney-General denied the allegation.
The Attorney-General stated in paragraph nine of the affidavit that the government “denies the allegation which says that the Chief Justice has directed the selection of or the two Judges in question have selected some special criminal cases to be tried during the months of August and September 2026.”
The Deputy A-G pointed to the court’s subsequent interpretation of the warrants as evidence of what he considers a contradiction in the government’s position.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that it was “factually inaccurate” to claim that the warrants required the judges to conduct trials in “selected cases”.
The court explained that, on the face of the warrants, the judges had been authorised to conduct hearings “in all cases pending in their courts.”
The plaintiff, however, has interpreted another portion of the court’s reasoning as an acknowledgement that some cases were being treated differently and expedited.
Speaking after the proceedings, the plaintiff argued that the court had effectively acknowledged differential treatment, despite rejecting his characterisation of the warrants as applying specifically to “selected cases”.
“For the first time, the Court has admitted that some cases are being treated differently. ‘Differently’, those are the words of the judge. They’re being treated differently and expeditiously. Why? He doesn’t say so.”
The plaintiff further argued that although the court had recognised the difference in the treatment of cases, it had concluded that such treatment did not amount to a violation of the constitutional provisions relied upon in the case.
The controversy therefore centres on the interpretation of the Chief Justice’s warrants, the meaning of “selected cases” and whether the scheduling of criminal matters for hearing during the legal vacation amounts to unconstitutional discrimination or differential treatment.
The plaintiff maintains that the Attorney-General’s denial does not accurately reflect the issue raised in the case, while the court’s ruling rejects the factual premise that the warrants specifically authorised judges to hear only selected cases.
