Ofoase-Ayirebi MP, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, has invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, challenging directives from the Chief Justice that require selected judges to sit during the legal vacation to hear designated criminal cases.

In a writ filed at the Supreme Court in 2026, Mr Oppong Nkrumah is seeking declarations that the Chief Justice’s decision to direct some judges to conduct criminal trials involving selected cases during the legal vacation is inconsistent with several provisions of the 1992 Constitution and should therefore be declared unconstitutional, null and void.

The action has been brought against the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana and the Attorney-General.

Mr Oppong Nkrumah is relying on Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the Constitution, together with Rule 45 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I. 16), as the legal basis for invoking the apex court’s original jurisdiction.

At the heart of the case is the Plaintiff’s contention that the arrangement for hearing selected criminal matters during the legal vacation raises questions about equality before the law, administrative discretion, access to justice and the rights and welfare of members of the legal profession and judicial service.

According to the writ, Mr. Oppong Nkrumah wants the Supreme Court to determine whether warrants issued by the Chief Justice directing certain judges to sit during the legal vacation for the conduct of criminal trials in selected cases are compatible with Articles 17(1) and (2), 23 and 296(a) and (b) of the Constitution.

The MP argues that the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and protection against discriminatory treatment, and he asks the Supreme Court to examine whether the selection of particular cases for hearing during the legal vacation constitutes unequal treatment.

A major aspect of the case concerns what the legislator describes as “selective justice.”

Mr Oppong Nkrumah is asking the Supreme Court to declare that prioritising what have been described as “special criminal cases” for hearing during the legal vacation, while other criminal matters are left unattended, violates Article 17(1) of the Constitution.

He is therefore seeking a declaration that the practice, if found to have the effect alleged in his writ, is unconstitutional, null and void.

The Plaintiff has also raised concerns about the impact of the directive on the health and welfare of members of the Ghana Bar and the Judicial Service who are affected by the decision to conduct proceedings during the legal vacation.

He is asking the Supreme Court to determine whether the Chief Justice’s directives are inconsistent with constitutional provisions relating to the right to work under satisfactory, safe, and healthy conditions and the broader constitutional obligation to protect workers' welfare.

Specifically, Mr. Oppong Nkrumah is relying on Articles 24(1) and (2) and 36(10) of the 1992 Constitution in challenging the directives.

The case further seeks to subject the relevant court rules to constitutional scrutiny.

Mr. Oppong Nkrumah is asking the Supreme Court to declare that Order 79 Rules 1(1) and 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), to the extent that they permit the Chief Justice to select cases for hearing during legal vacations in the same manner as ordinary court sittings, are inconsistent with Articles 17(1), 17(2), 23, 24(1), 24(2), 36(10) and 296(a) and (b) of the Constitution.

If the Supreme Court agrees with the Plaintiff’s interpretation, the affected provisions would be rendered constitutionally unenforceable to the extent challenged.

The MP is also asking the Supreme Court for any other orders or directions it considers necessary to give effect to whatever declarations the court may ultimately make.

Mr Oppong Nkrumah has brought the case in multiple capacities—as a Ghanaian citizen, a Member of Parliament and a lawyer—underscoring the constitutional nature of the challenge.

The writ directs the two defendants to file their respective statements of case within 14 days after service of the Plaintiff’s case, inclusive of the day of service.

The lawsuit comes against the backdrop of growing public and legal debate over how criminal cases are prioritised within the justice system, particularly where special arrangements are made for certain cases.

The legal vacation is ordinarily a period during which the regular activities of the superior courts are reduced, although the applicable rules permit arrangements for certain matters to be heard during the period.

The dispute raised by Mr Oppong Nkrumah is therefore not simply about whether courts can sit during the vacation, but whether the manner in which particular cases are selected and prioritised complies with the constitutional principles of equality, fairness and proper exercise of discretion.

At the centre of the constitutional challenge is also Article 296, which regulates the exercise of discretionary power by public authorities.

Mr Oppong Nkrumah is asking the Supreme Court to determine whether the Chief Justice’s exercise of administrative and judicial discretion in selecting cases for vacation sittings meets the constitutional requirements governing such discretion.

The former Information Minister’s action could consequently have implications beyond the specific criminal cases affected by the disputed directives.

A ruling by the Supreme Court could clarify the extent of the Chief Justice’s administrative powers in organising vacation sittings and the constitutional limits, if any, on the selection of cases for such proceedings.

The case also places before the Supreme Court the broader question of how the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law should operate within the administration of criminal justice where the judiciary decides that certain cases require accelerated attention.

Until the Supreme Court determines the matter, the allegations and constitutional arguments contained in the writ remain claims advanced by the Plaintiff and are subject to judicial determination.

The Chief Justice and the Attorney-General will have the opportunity to respond to the claims in their statements of case.