The Supreme Court has adjourned to Friday, August 21, to rule on a suit challenging the constitutionality of administrative warrants issued by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie directing selected High Court judges to sit during the legal vacation.

The suit, filed by the Member of Parliament for Ofoase-Ayirebi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, challenges the decision to continue hearing selected criminal cases during the vacation.

Speaking after Thursday’s proceedings, lawyer for Oppong Nkrumah, Frank Davies, maintained that the Attorney General should not be representing the Chief Justice in the case.

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

Frank Davies argued that because the Chief Justice had been named substantively as a defendant, he ought to have separate legal representation.

He said allowing the Attorney General, an arm of the Executive, to represent the head of the Judiciary raised questions 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.”

Frank Davies, however, said the legal team would take guidance from the court’s ruling and focus on the substantive constitutional challenge.

At the heart of the case is the argument that continuing criminal trials during the legal vacation could affect the accused persons’ constitutional right to a fair trial and representation by lawyers of their choice.

Frank Davies stressed that his client was not seeking to prevent the criminal cases from being tried.

“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.”

He said the lawyers representing the accused persons had informed the courts that they were unable to attend the proceedings during the legal vacation.

According to him, the longstanding practice is for trials to be conducted during the vacation only where the lawyers involved agree and the judge subsequently obtains a warrant from the Chief Justice to continue with the proceedings.

Frank Davies argued that the circumstances in the cases under challenge were different because, according to him, the lawyers had not agreed to the continuation of the trials.

He also questioned why only selected criminal cases were being heard during the vacation while other matters 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 is expected to rule on the challenge on Friday, August 21.