Lawyer for Ofoase-Ayirebi MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, Frank Davies, has renewed his objection to the Attorney General representing Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie in a constitutional case over the conduct of trials during the legal vacation.
Mr Davies argues that the Chief Justice, as the head of an independent arm of government and a substantive defendant in the case, should have separate legal representation.
His comments followed Thursday’s proceedings at the Supreme Court, where the court rejected an objection challenging the Attorney General’s representation of the Chief Justice.
Mr Davies said although his legal team would abide by the court’s decision, the arrangement raised important constitutional questions about the 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.
The substantive case filed by Mr Oppong Nkrumah challenges administrative warrants issued by the Chief Justice directing selected High Court judges to continue hearing criminal cases during the legal vacation, which runs from August 1 to September 30.
Mr Davies said the challenge was not intended to prevent the affected accused persons from being tried, but to protect their right to a fair trial and to representation by lawyers of their choice.
“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 for some of the accused persons had informed the courts that they were unavailable during the vacation, yet proceedings continued.
He argued that the established practice was for criminal trials to proceed during the legal vacation where the lawyers involved agreed to continue, after which the judge would obtain the necessary warrant from the Chief Justice.
Mr Davies contended that the circumstances surrounding the cases in question were different because the lawyers had not consented to the continuation of the proceedings.
He also questioned the basis for selecting certain criminal cases for hearing during the vacation while other cases before the same courts had not received similar treatment.
“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.
The Supreme Court has adjourned the case to Friday, August 21, 2026, to deliver its ruling.