The opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) has warned that Ghana’s Judiciary risks losing public confidence if it is
perceived as being used to advance the prosecutorial interests of the Executive.
The party has taken particular issue with the decision of the Chief Justice, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, to issue
special warrants authorising two High Court judges to conduct full criminal trials during the ongoing legal vacation.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, August 11, the NPP argued that the decision undermines the constitutional
principle of judicial independence and creates the impression that the Judiciary is being aligned with the
prosecution’s agenda.
“The Judiciary must never become an annex of the Office of the Attorney-General,” the party stated.
NPP QUESTIONS SELECTIVE VACATION TRIALS
According to the NPP, 29 courts across the country are currently operating as vacation courts. It said the established
practice during legal vacation is for such courts to deal principally with motions and urgent interlocutory
applications, with substantive criminal trials generally suspended until the regular legal term resumes.
The party, however, pointed out that only two courts, presided over by Justices Achibonga and Kocuvie-Tay, have
reportedly received special authorisation to conduct full criminal trials during the vacation.
Such proceedings, the NPP noted, require accused persons and their lawyers to attend court physically.
The party questioned why the special arrangements had been made specifically for those courts and cases.
It further alleged that all the cases affected involve persons associated with the NPP.
The party therefore challenged the Chief Justice to explain why trials involving political opponents of the
government should be treated with such urgency when other serious criminal cases are subject to the normal
vacation arrangements.
The NPP contended that the selective application of the arrangements creates the perception that the objective is not
simply the administration of justice but the continued prosecution and possible incarceration of its members.
LAWYERS' UNAVAILABILITY
The party also referred to correspondence from defence lawyers concerning their inability to participate in the
proceedings during the legal vacation.
According to the NPP, law firms Zoe, Akyea & Co. and Dame & Partners wrote to the Chief Justice on August 5,
2026, notifying him of counsel’s unavailability.
It said the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) subsequently wrote to the Chief Justice on August 10, reminding him of
the established practice concerning vacation courts and the participation of defence counsel.
Despite these representations, the NPP said the special warrants remained in force.
The party expressed concern that the Chief Justice had publicly defended the decision rather than withdrawing the
warrants or accommodating the concerns raised by the Bar.
CONCERNS OVER FAIR TRIAL RIGHTS
The NPP also criticised proceedings involving former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-
Boahene, in which the accused persons were reportedly given a short period within which to secure new legal
representation or conduct the cross-examination of a prosecution witness themselves.
The party described the development as a serious threat to the accused persons' constitutional right to a fair trial.
It specifically invoked Article 19(2)(f) of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees an accused person the right to
defend himself personally or by a lawyer of his choice.
The NPP argued that forcing an accused person to conduct his own cross-examination merely because his preferred
lawyer is unavailable cannot be regarded as ordinary case management.
QUESTIONS OVER CHIEF JUSTICE'S APPOINTMENT
The party also drew attention to the circumstances surrounding Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s appointment as Chief
Justice.
The NPP described the removal of former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo as unprecedented and contested and
argued that the subsequent confirmation of Justice Baffoe-Bonnie occurred amid strong political disagreement,
including an objection and walkout by the Parliamentary Minority.
The party nevertheless said it had expected the new Chief Justice to demonstrate strict independence in the discharge
of his constitutional responsibilities.
Instead, it accused him of facilitating what it considers selective criminal trials against persons associated with the
NPP and of appearing to act in concert with the Attorney-General's prosecutorial agenda.
NPP DEMANDS REVERSAL
The NPP is therefore demanding that the Chief Justice:
immediately withdraw the special warrants permitting substantive criminal trials during the legal vacation;
give proper consideration to the concerns raised by the Ghana Bar Association;
restore the traditional practice governing vacation courts; and
rescind the ultimatum reportedly issued to accused persons in the Adu-Boahene proceedings concerning the securing
of legal representation.
The party anchored its position in the constitutional principle that justice is administered on behalf of the people.
It cited Article 125(1) of the 1992 Constitution, which provides that justice emanates from the people and that the
Judiciary is vested with judicial power.
The NPP warned that public office holders, including judges, ultimately remain accountable for the manner in which
they exercise their constitutional responsibilities.
It stressed that it remains committed to the rule of law and judicial independence but would resist what it described
as the “weaponisation” of the courts against its members or any other Ghanaian.
Source: ModernGhana/Class FM, August 11–12, 2026.
