Chief Justice Baffoe-Bonnie
The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the continuation of selected criminal trials during the legal vacation by dismissing an application for injunction seeking to halt the Chief Justice’s warrant permitting two courts to hear the cases.
The decision paves way for the High Court to continue the trial of some former appointees of the erstwhile New Patriotic Party (NPP).
The court, presided over by a single judge, Justice Gabriel Pwamang, in a ruling last Friday, said the applicant, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, failed to establish that the Chief Justice’s warrant was discriminatory.
The court held, among others, that there is no existing precedent to injunct the Chief Justice from issuing warrant for courts to continue to hear cases during the legal vacation.
According to him, Article 19(1) guarantees speedy trial of persons accused of criminal offences, and the framers of the constitution consider speedy trial so fundamental that under Article 14 clause 4 they provide that when there is an unreasonable delay in the trial of the person in detention, they may be released either conditionally or unconditionally.
Justice Pwamang also held that the warrants issued by the Chief Justice are part of efforts to provide an opportunity for more criminal cases to be heard expeditiously.
He said the fact that some criminal cases are not being heard during the legal vacation does not mean that the administration of justice would not be advanced to some extent by these hearings.
He also indicated that the fact that trials of persons facing criminal prosecution do not usually take place during legal vacation ought not to be the ground for injuncting the Chief Justice and stopping the expeditious hearings of cases such as narcotics, Auditor-General surcharges, cyber security, illegal mining (galamsey), corruption and corruption-related matters.
“In my view, the administration of justice, which is in the public interest, would be better served if the hearings continue,” he stated.
Writ
Member of Parliament (MP) for Ofoase-Ayirebi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, has filed a suit at the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Chief Justice’s warrant permitting certain courts to continue the hearing of selected criminal cases during the legal vacation.
He avers that the Chief Justice’s directive for the judges to continue hearing some selected cases during the legal vacation is unconstitutional and inconsistent with the spirit of Articles 17(1), (2) and 296(a) and (b) of the 1992 Constitution.
He also contends that the Chief Justice’s action to promote and facilitate the hearing of ‘special criminal cases’ in the legal vacation to the neglect of other criminal cases amount to selective justice, which contravenes Article 17(1) of the Constitution and therefore unconstitutional, null and void.
According to him, the impugned warrant confers preferential treatment upon selected criminal cases during the legal vacation without objective and constitutionally ascertainable criteria regulating that selection.
Injunction Application
He followed it up with an application for interlocutory injunction seeking to restrain the trial judges from proceeding with the trials pending the determination of the writ.
He argues that unless the implementation of the impugned warrants is restrained pending the determination of the substantive action, the very subject matter of the action will continue to be acted upon while its constitutional validity remains undetermined.
The affidavit in support of the application further points out that the criminal trials may involve the taking of evidence from witnesses, the admission of documentary and other evidence, cross-examination, rulings on applications, legal submissions and other substantive judicial steps.
“Some of the criminal proceedings being conducted pursuant to the impugned warrants will progress substantially and even conclude before the substantive constitutional action is finally determined,” he added.
Moving the motion last Thursday, his lawyer, Frank Davies, argued that the continuation of the impugned court sittings risks rendering the substantive reliefs sought nugatory and a final declaration by the apex court will be deprived of practical effect in relation to proceedings already conducted pursuant to the impugned warrants.
He said if the impugned warrants are ultimately declared unconstitutional, it may be difficult or impracticable to restore the parties in those criminal proceedings to the precise position in which they would have been had the warrants not been implemented.
Mr. Davies further argued that the balance of convenience favours the preservation of the status quo pending the determination of the substantive constitutional questions since the trials can resume if the case is unsuccessful.
He added that if the injunction is refused and the suit ultimately succeeds, irreparable harm would occasion the accused persons, which cannot be remedied by monetary compensation.
Opposition
The application was opposed by Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, who argued that it did not meet any of the three grounds set for the grant of an interlocutory application.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak