Supreme Court gives Attorney-General seven days to respond in KIA renaming case

The Supreme Court of Ghana has directed the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice to file a response within seven days in a legal dispute challenging the reported renaming of Kotoka International Airport.

The directive was issued on Thursday, May 14, 2026, during proceedings in the case of Austin Kwabena Brako-Powers versus the Attorney-General. The case seeks to determine whether the reported move to rename Ghana’s main international airport followed the constitutional and legal procedures required under Ghanaian law.

Mr. Brako-Powers, a lawyer and policy analyst, filed the suit in March 2026, arguing that any attempt to change the official name of Kotoka International Airport must be done through a formal legislative process rather than through an executive directive or administrative decision.

At the center of the legal challenge is the interpretation of the General Kotoka Trust Decree, 1969 (NRCD 339), which established the legal framework governing the naming of the airport. According to the plaintiff, the law requires any amendment, repeal, or alteration relating to the airport’s official name to receive the necessary parliamentary and constitutional approval before implementation.

The case has generated significant public and political interest because Kotoka International Airport is one of Ghana’s most important national assets and carries historical significance. The airport was named after Lieutenant General Emmanuel Kwasi Kotoka, a key figure in Ghana’s political history.

Speaking to journalists after the hearing, counsel for the plaintiff, Michael Akosah, stressed that the renaming of a national monument or public institution cannot be done arbitrarily. He argued that constitutional governance and the rule of law require strict compliance with established legal procedures, especially when dealing with state assets of national importance.

Lawyers representing the state, led by a Chief State Attorney, requested additional time to respond to the substantive constitutional and legal issues raised in the suit. Although the Supreme Court granted the request, the judges emphasized the need for speedy proceedings and instructed the Attorney-General to submit a response within seven days to avoid unnecessary delays.

According to the plaintiff, the case raises broader constitutional questions about the extent of executive authority, administrative decision-making, and the legal processes required for renaming national landmarks in Ghana. Legal analysts say the outcome of the case could establish an important precedent regarding how governments manage and rename state-owned properties and public institutions.

The Attorney-General is expected to clarify whether existing laws permit the executive branch or state agencies to unilaterally rename national assets without parliamentary approval. Observers believe the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling could have long-term implications for governance, constitutional interpretation, and public administration in Ghana.

The matter is expected to return before the Supreme Court once the Attorney-General files its official response.