[REVISION HISTORY]

Ghana judicial vacation reform and constitutional debate

Updated 19 times since CLSTR started tracking revisions of this situation.

What changed

2026-09-05 00:13 UTC → 2026-09-05 12:13 UTC · added ~~removed~~

The debate over Ghana’s annual judicial vacation, spanning August 1 to September 30, has intensified following disputes over the handling of part-heard criminal trials. The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) has formally protested the requirement for lawyers to appear for such trials during the vacation period, maintaining that vacation courts should be restricted to urgent or interlocutory matters. Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie has rejected these protests, asserting that lawyers cannot unilaterally decide to skip scheduled dates. On August 14, 2026, MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah filed a lawsuit at the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of warrants issued by the Chief Justice. Oppong Nkrumah argues that directing specific judges to conduct ‘special criminal cases’ constitutes ‘selective justice,’ violating equality before the law under Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution. On September 2, 2026, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed an application by Oppong Nkrumah to review an earlier ruling that allowed selected cases to proceed during the vacation. Concurrently, Chief Justice Baffoe-Bonnie has faced escalating scrutiny regarding judicial independence following visits to state-owned institutions, such as the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF) and the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT). During these visits, the Chief Justice remarked that the progress of these institutions made him wonder ‘what the country had been doing over the previous eight years.’ This has led to calls for his resignation from the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the People’s Alliance for Governance and Accountability (PAGA), who accused him of acting as a ‘party propagandist.’ On September 4, 2026, civil society organization CDD-Ghana joined the debate, urging the Chief Justice to exercise greater restraint to maintain public confidence. The Judicial Service has defended the remarks, with Judicial Secretary Musah Ahmed stating the observations were made in good faith and were not intended to be ‘inimical to judicial independence.’

Versions

Only revisions since CLSTR began indexing content versions appear here. Select a version to see what changed compared to the one before it.