The Supreme Court has dismissed the injunction application filed by Ofoase Ayeribi MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah to stay proceedings until the final determination of a case challenging the constitutionality of warrants issued by the Chief Justice to some High Court judges to hold criminal trials during the legal vacation.
The Court held that the applicant had failed to establish a sufficiently strong case to warrant the grant of an injunction against the Chief Justice’s exercise of his constitutional and administrative powers.
In its ruling, the Court presided over by Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang explained the reasons for allowing the Attorney General to represent the Chief Justice. The court noted that the Supreme Court had previously held in the Republic vrs Tsatsu Tsikata that the Chief Justice, being a public official, could be represented by the Attorney-General in proceedings brought against him.
The Court therefore found nothing improper in the Attorney-General announcing his representation of the Chief Justice in the case.
A major part of the applicant’s case was that the decision to assign criminal cases to judges during the legal vacation violated the constitutional guarantee of equality and non-discrimination under Article 17.
The Court, however, rejected that argument, holding that there was no evidence that the Chief Justice had directed that the law be applied differently to persons appearing before the courts.
The Court further observed that the applicant himself had acknowledged that the Chief Justice had discretion to issue warrants assigning judges to conduct cases.
“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.
According to the Court, the warrants were clear on their face that the judges were expected to conduct cases pending before their respective courts.
The applicant had also not alleged that the Chief Justice’s decision was influenced by the colour, gender, religion or other constitutionally prohibited characteristics of accused persons or witnesses appearing before the courts.
The Court said the warrants formed part of efforts to create opportunities for more criminal cases to be heard and determined expeditiously.
It stressed that the fact that some criminal cases are not ordinarily heard during the legal vacation did not mean that the administration of justice could not be advanced during that period.
Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang presiding as a solo judge thus dismisses the application. The substantive challenge to the constitutionality of the Chief Justice’s warrants will therefore proceed separately from the unsuccessful application for interlocutory relief.
