On Friday, August 1, Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie issued administrative warrants at the start of the legal vacation period, which runs from August 1 to September 30.

The warrants directed High Court judges to continue sitting during the recess to hear designated criminal cases, including those involving Kwabena Adu-Boahen, former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau (NSB), and Hanan Abdul-Wahab, former Chief Executive Officer of the National Food and Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO).

The directive stirred discontent among a section of the public, particularly the Minority in Parliament, prompting Ofoase-Ayirebi Member of Parliament, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, to challenge the decision to continue hearing selected criminal cases during the vacation.

Speaking in court on Thursday, counsel for Mr Oppong Nkrumah, Frank Davies, maintained that the Attorney General (AG) should not represent the Chief Justice, arguing that the Chief Justice, having been named as a defendant, ought to have separate legal representation.

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

Mr Davies said allowing the Attorney General, an arm of the Executive, to represent the head of the Judiciary raised 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,” he said.

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

Fair trial concerns

At the centre of the case is an argument that the continued hearing of criminal cases during the legal vacation could affect the accused persons’ constitutional right to a fair trial and representation by lawyers of their choice.

Mr Davies stressed that his client was not seeking to prevent 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,” he said.

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

Mr Davies said the longstanding practice was for criminal trials to continue during the legal vacation only where the lawyers involved agreed to it, after which the judge would obtain a warrant from the Chief Justice to proceed with the case.

However, in the cases of Adu-Boahen and Wahab, this has become an exception as despite the lawyers' communication of their unavailability, the trial has been directed to hold.

“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?” he asked.