Private citizen drags Chief Justice, Attorney General to Supreme Court over legal vacation

A private citizen, Elorm Kwami Gorni, has dragged Attorney General Dominic Ayine and Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie before the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of Ghana’s legal vacation arrangements.

Mr Gorni is asking the apex court to examine the annual suspension of sittings at the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal from August 1 to September 30, arguing that the two-month break could undermine citizens’ constitutional right to timely access to justice.

The suit, filed on July 28, 2026, invokes the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution.

According to Mr Gorni, the legal vacation arrangements create a situation where litigants with pending cases before Ghana’s two highest courts may have to wait until the end of September before their matters can be heard.

He contrasts the arrangement with the High Court system, where designated Vacation Courts continue to sit during the legal vacation to deal with certain matters.

The plaintiff argues that the absence of regular sittings at the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal throughout the vacation could result in delays in the determination of several categories of cases.

These include appeals, constitutional cases, applications for stay of execution, interlocutory applications and judicial review proceedings.

Mr Gorni is specifically challenging Rule 61(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (C.I. 19) and Rule 82 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I. 16).

He wants the Supreme Court to declare the provisions unconstitutional to the extent that they permit the suspension of sittings of the two appellate courts during the legal vacation.

The plaintiff argues that the rules, and the manner in which they are implemented, are inconsistent with several provisions of the 1992 Constitution, including Articles 19(1), 23, 33, 125 and 296.

Article 19(1), among other things, guarantees an accused person a fair hearing within a reasonable time, while Articles 23 and 33 provide constitutional protections relating to administrative justice and the enforcement of fundamental rights.

Mr Gorni contends that the administration of court sittings is an administrative function and must therefore be exercised in accordance with constitutional principles of fairness and reasonableness.

The plaintiff has stressed that his case is not intended to prevent judges from taking annual leave or enjoying a necessary period of rest.

Rather, he wants the Supreme Court to determine whether judicial leave can be organised in a manner that does not result in the complete suspension of the constitutional functions of the country’s two highest appellate courts.

He argues that alternative arrangements could allow judges to take their annual leave while ensuring that the courts remain operational throughout the legal year.

Among the reliefs being sought, Mr Gorni wants an order directing the Chief Justice to consider alternative mechanisms for managing judicial leave.

His proposed options include rotational sittings, vacation panels and staggered judicial leave.

Such arrangements, he argues, could allow the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal to continue hearing cases during the period traditionally designated as legal vacation while still preserving judges’ entitlement to annual leave.

The case comes amid growing public and legal debate over Ghana’s legal vacation system and whether the traditional arrangement remains compatible with the constitutional requirement for timely access to justice.

The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) recently appealed to the Chief Justice to respect established rules and traditions governing legal vacation, particularly in relation to lawyers who are unavailable to appear before Vacation Courts.

The association argued that where counsel informs a court that they are unavailable during the vacation, matters should generally be adjourned rather than proceeding in their absence.

The latest Supreme Court action introduces a broader constitutional question: whether the suspension of sittings at the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal itself creates an unacceptable barrier to timely justice.

The case could therefore have significant implications for the administration of justice in Ghana if the Supreme Court accepts the constitutional challenge and orders changes to the longstanding legal vacation arrangements.