Lawyer for Ofoase-Ayirebi MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, Frank Davies, has maintained that the Attorney General should not be representing Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie in a suit challenging administrative warrants directing selected High Court judges to sit during the legal vacation.

Frank Davies argues that because the Chief Justice has been named substantively as a defendant, he should have separate legal representation.

Speaking after Thursday’s proceedings at the Supreme Court, he said that allowing the Attorney General, an arm of the Executive, to represent the head of the Judiciary raises concerns about the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

“The Chief Justice heads an independent organ of the state, the judiciary. We have the judiciary, the legislature, and the executive. They are supposed to be independent organs of the state.”

The court had earlier rejected the argument challenging the Attorney General’s representation of the Chief Justice.

Frank Davies said his legal team would nevertheless take guidance from the court’s decision and focus on the substantive constitutional issues raised in the case.

At the centre of the suit is a challenge to the Chief Justice’s decision to issue administrative warrants allowing selected High Court judges to continue hearing criminal cases during the legal vacation, which runs from August 1 to September 30.

Frank Davies said the continuation of the trials could affect accused persons’ constitutional right to a fair trial and representation by lawyers of their choice.

He stressed that Mr Oppong Nkrumah was not seeking to stop the criminal cases from being heard.

“We are not saying that they should not be tried. What we are saying is that the continued trial of the cases in the legal vacation offends their right to fair representation and lawyers of their own choice.”

According to Frank Davies, lawyers representing the accused persons had informed the courts that they were unable to attend proceedings during the vacation.

He said the longstanding practice was for trials to continue during the legal vacation where the lawyers involved agreed, and the judge subsequently obtained a warrant from the Chief Justice.

Mr Davies contended that this was not the case in the matters under challenge, as the lawyers had not agreed to the continuation of the proceedings.

He also questioned why only selected criminal cases were being heard during the vacation while other cases before the same courts had not been similarly prioritised.

“If it is the case that there can be trials during the vacation, why is it that it is only those selected cases which are being tried?”

The Supreme Court has adjourned the case to Friday, August 21, 2026, to deliver its ruling.

The suit, filed by Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, seeks to determine whether the administrative warrants issued by the Chief Justice are constitutional and whether the affected criminal trials can continue during the legal vacation.