Omanghana
The Supreme Court of Ghana has dismissed an application seeking to suspend criminal trials associated with Operation Recover All Loot during the annual legal vacation.
The decision allows selected High Courts in Accra to continue hearing criminal cases despite the general legal vacation, which runs from August 1 to September 30.
Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, Member of Parliament for Ofoase-Ayirebi, filed the action challenging the constitutionality of administrative warrants issued by the Chief Justice authorizing selected superior court judges to sit during the vacation.
Sitting as a single justice, Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang declined to grant the interlocutory injunction requested by the applicant.
The court held that the application had not established sufficiently serious constitutional grounds to justify temporarily halting the affected proceedings while the substantive case remained unresolved.
Justice Pwamang reportedly observed that although regular civil proceedings are generally limited during the legal vacation, the administration of justice does not completely stop.
The ruling affirmed that the Chief Justice has administrative authority to arrange vacation sittings for criminal matters considered urgent or in the public interest.
Such cases may include prosecutions involving illegal mining, commonly known as galamsey, narcotics offences and alleged financial crimes involving public officials.
The legal vacation traditionally provides judges and court staff with a break from the regular court calendar. However, designated vacation courts remain available to handle urgent applications, criminal trials and other matters that cannot reasonably be postponed.
The dismissal means that Justice Francis Achibonga and other judges assigned to vacation duties may continue presiding over the affected proceedings at the High Court in Accra.
Among the cases cited in connection with the application is the prosecution of former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his wife.
The former intelligence official and the other accused persons are facing state charges arising from allegations concerning public funds. The charges remain allegations, and the accused persons are entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
The ruling also affects proceedings involving former National Food Buffer Stock Company Chief Executive Officer Hanan Abdul-Wahab.
His prosecution forms part of the state’s broader accountability campaign connected to Operation Recover All Loot, popularly known as ORAL. He is similarly presumed innocent unless convicted by a competent court.
Beyond the continuation of the criminal trials, the case raised a constitutional question about representation for the Chief Justice.
Counsel for Oppong Nkrumah, Frank Davies, argued that allowing the Attorney-General’s Office to represent the Chief Justice created concerns under the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
He maintained that because the Attorney-General belongs to the executive arm of government, its representation of the administrative head of the Judiciary could create an institutional conflict.
Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Edem Srem-Sai rejected that argument, insisting that there was no constitutional conflict.
He argued that the Attorney-General was legally permitted to represent the Chief Justice in a matter concerning the administrative exercise of her official functions.
Dr. Srem-Sai also drew a distinction between the Chief Justice’s administrative authority to assign judges and each judge’s independent responsibility to determine cases according to the law and the evidence presented.
Under that distinction, an administrative warrant authorizing a judge to sit during the vacation does not direct the judge on how to conduct or decide a particular case.
The Supreme Court’s decision on the injunction does not necessarily determine every issue raised in the substantive constitutional action. It means only that the applicant failed to persuade the court to pause the trials while the broader dispute is considered.
The ruling nevertheless removes an immediate procedural obstacle to the continuation of the affected ORAL prosecutions.
It also reinforces the operation of Ghana’s vacation court system, under which urgent criminal and public-interest cases may proceed outside the regular court calendar.
Source: Omanghana
