Legal practitioner Kofi Bentil has expressed support for lawyers who have indicated that they will not attend court during the legal vacation despite a directive from the Chief Justice requiring selected judges to sit and hear cases.
Speaking on TV3’s The Key Points on Saturday, August 15, Mr Bentil said the legal vacation system needs to be reviewed because of its impact on lawyers, their clients and the wider legal profession.
He explained that lawyers and their clients plan their schedules around the legal vacation, making it difficult when selected lawyers and judges are required to work during the period.
“The legal fraternity needs to take another look at legal vacation. It’s not because of us, but because of the effect of our work on others,” he said.
Calls for Reform of the Judiciary
Also speaking on the programme, CEO of the Ghana Shippers’ Authority, Professor Ransford Gyampo, questioned whether Ghana’s judiciary has moved sufficiently away from systems inherited from the colonial era.
He cited the continued use of typists to record court proceedings instead of modern electronic recording and transcription systems.
“You go to court, and someone is typing what the lawyer says,” he said.
Professor Gyampo also questioned why the courts should go on vacation for extended periods when there are cases awaiting adjudication.
“I don’t understand why our Courts must go on vacation for months when we need to deliver justice to people. We still have relics of colonialism in our judicial service,” he said.
Supreme Court Challenge to Chief Justice’s Directive
The debate over the legal vacation comes after Member of Parliament for Ofoase Ayirebi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, filed a suit at the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of administrative warrants issued by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie.
The warrants direct selected High Court judges to sit and conduct criminal trials during the legal vacation.
The Chief Justice is the first defendant in the case, while the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dominic Ayine, is the second defendant.
Mr Oppong Nkrumah filed the writ on Friday, August 14, 2026.
He is seeking declarations that the administrative warrants are inconsistent with the 1992 Constitution and are therefore null and void.
Claim of Selective Justice
The MP argues that giving priority to selected criminal cases during the legal vacation, while leaving other pending criminal cases outside the scope of the directive, amounts to selective justice.
In his statement of case, he maintained that his challenge was not directed at the Chief Justice’s constitutional authority to administer the Judiciary or regulate court sittings.
He acknowledged that the Chief Justice has broad administrative responsibilities for ensuring the effective and efficient operation of the courts.
However, he argued that those powers must be exercised within the limits of the Constitution.
“The Constitution does not recognise absolute or unreviewable discretionary power,” he argued.
Mr Oppong Nkrumah further contends that every public authority, including the Chief Justice, must exercise administrative and discretionary powers fairly, reasonably, transparently and consistently with the Constitution.
According to him, the disputed warrants effectively prioritise selected criminal cases while other pending criminal matters remain outside their scope.
The Supreme Court will therefore have to determine whether the Chief Justice’s administrative directives fall within his constitutional powers and whether their implementation amounts to unconstitutional selective treatment of criminal cases.
