A private citizen, Elorm Kwami Gorni, has filed a lawsuit at the Supreme Court of Ghana challenging the constitutionality of the country’s legal vacation arrangements.
The suit names Attorney General Dominic Ayine and Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie as the first and second defendants respectively.
Mr Gorni is asking the Supreme Court to examine whether the annual suspension of sittings at the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court during the legal vacation is consistent with citizens’ constitutional right to timely access to justice.
Legal Vacation Under Constitutional Challenge
The case, filed on July 28, 2026, invokes the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.
At the centre of the legal challenge is the practice of suspending regular sittings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court from August 1 to September 30 each year.
According to Mr Gorni, the arrangement could create delays for litigants with pending cases before Ghana’s two highest appellate courts.
While the High Courts continue to operate on a limited basis through designated vacation courts to address certain urgent matters, he argues that the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court do not sit during the entire legal vacation period.
Plaintiff Raises Access to Justice Concerns
Mr Gorni contends that the two-month suspension of appellate court proceedings can force litigants to wait until the end of the legal vacation before their cases can be heard.
He argues that such delays could affect the constitutional right of citizens to a fair hearing within a reasonable time.
The plaintiff says the legal vacation arrangement has the potential to delay several categories of cases, including appeals, constitutional cases, applications for stay of execution, interlocutory applications and judicial review proceedings.
Supreme Court Rules Challenged
As part of his case, Mr Gorni is asking the Supreme Court to declare 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) unconstitutional to the extent that they allow the suspension of sittings during the legal vacation.
He argues that the rules and the administrative practices surrounding their implementation are inconsistent with provisions of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, including Articles 19(1), 23, 33, 125 and 296.
According to the plaintiff, the arrangement may undermine the constitutional protection of access to justice and the right to have administrative decisions made fairly and reasonably.
Legal Vacation and Judicial Leave
Mr Gorni has stressed that his lawsuit is not challenging judges’ entitlement to annual leave, rest or vacation.
Instead, he wants the Supreme Court to determine whether judicial leave can be organised in a way that allows judges to take their required periods of rest without completely suspending the constitutional functions of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
He argues that the administration of the judicial calendar and decisions regarding when courts sit are administrative functions and should therefore comply with the constitutional requirements under Article 23.
Calls for Alternative Court Arrangements
The plaintiff is asking the Supreme Court to direct the Chief Justice to consider alternative arrangements that would allow the appellate courts to continue operating during the legal year.
Among the options proposed are rotational sittings, vacation panels and staggered judicial leave.
Mr Gorni believes the growing number of justices serving on the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal makes such arrangements possible while preserving judges’ entitlement to annual leave.
The case has therefore placed Ghana’s longstanding legal vacation system under constitutional scrutiny, with broader implications for access to justice, timely court proceedings, the right of appeal and the efficient administration of justice in Ghana.
Source: newsthemegh.com