The nationwide industrial action by the Judicial Service Staff Association of Ghana (JUSAG) has brought court operations to a virtual standstill in several parts of the country, disrupting proceedings at major judicial institutions in Accra and Kumasi and leaving litigants, lawyers and other court users stranded as a dispute over the implementation of the 2026 salary review escalates.
The indefinite strike, which commenced on Monday, November 2, 2026, has affected the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Accra High Court, Circuit Courts and several District Courts, while judicial facilities in the Ashanti Region, including the Kumasi High Court, Court of Appeal, Asokwa Circuit Court and Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly Court, have also experienced closures.
The disruption has exposed the extent to which the administration of justice depends not only on judges and magistrates but also on the administrative, registry, clerical and other essential personnel who keep the judicial system functioning. With members of the association withdrawing their services, court users who had travelled to attend scheduled hearings, obtain documents or pursue other legal processes have encountered locked entrances and largely deserted premises.
At several court facilities in Accra, security personnel reportedly restricted access and were instructed to keep the gates closed following the commencement of the industrial action. Red pieces of cloth displayed at the entrances of some court buildings have become visible symbols of the workers’ protest and their determination to press home their demands.
At the Accra High Court, JoyNews Legal Correspondent Fatawu Bayaga reported that several people had gathered outside the premises after being prevented from entering. Similar scenes were reported in Kumasi, where a visit to the High Court, Court of Appeal, Asokwa Circuit Court and KMA Court revealed closed facilities, an absence of judicial personnel and only a handful of members of the public seeking legal assistance.
The consequences have been particularly frustrating for litigants whose cases were scheduled for Monday, with some arriving at the premises without prior knowledge that the industrial action would prevent proceedings from taking place.
Among those affected was Joyce Konama, whose case was expected to receive judgment at the Kumasi High Court. She expressed disappointment after travelling a considerable distance from her town, only to discover that the court was closed.
Madam Konama said she had not been aware of the strike and was deeply concerned about the uncertainty surrounding her case. She appealed to the government to accelerate negotiations with the association and resolve the disagreement over the conditions of service of judicial employees.
Her experience reflects the wider difficulties confronting members of the public who depend on the courts for the determination of civil disputes, criminal proceedings, commercial disagreements and other legal matters. Some affected court users have consequently appealed to the government to give greater attention to the welfare of judicial employees, warning that a prolonged shutdown could generate further frustration and potentially aggravate tensions within the country.
The industrial action is rooted in a disagreement over the approval and implementation of revised salaries and allowances for Judicial Service employees for 2026, as well as the payment of accumulated arrears dating from January to October this year.
The dispute did not emerge suddenly. Its origins can be traced to the end of the previous salary review period in December 2025, when JUSAG began pursuing a new adjustment for the 2026 financial year. The association subsequently submitted proposals to the Judicial Council in December 2025, seeking the annual review of salaries and conditions of service under the applicable constitutional and regulatory framework.
At the centre of the disagreement is Article 149 of the 1992 Constitution, which provides for the determination of salaries and conditions of service of judicial officers and other employees of the Judicial Service on the advice of the Judicial Council, subject to presidential determination. The relevant framework is further addressed by the Judicial Service (Terms and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2025 (C.I. 141), which JUSAG has invoked in support of its demand for an annual review.
According to the association, the Judicial Council completed its consideration of the proposed adjustments and submitted its recommendations to President John Dramani Mahama for determination. However, JUSAG maintains that the process subsequently stalled, leaving its members without the revised salaries and allowances expected for 2026.
The association says it first wrote to the Judicial Council on January 19, 2026, requesting that the review process be expedited. It subsequently sent another reminder on September 10, while also raising the matter at its Second Quadrennial Delegates’ Conference in Tamale in August, the 45th Conference of the Association of Magistrates and Judges of Ghana in Accra in September and the Chief Justice’s Staff Durbar.
JUSAG’s position is that these engagements produced assurances but failed to deliver the required presidential approval or an implementation timetable. It has also expressed dissatisfaction with what it considers an unequal approach to the 2026 public sector salary adjustments, arguing that employees in other public sector institutions had received their revised salaries in January while judicial employees remained without their adjustments as the year approached its final months.
MyJoyOnline+2
The association’s frustration intensified when organised labour had already begun negotiations over the 2027 base pay while Judicial Service employees were still waiting for their 2026 salary review to be implemented.
Following an emergency meeting, JUSAG’s National Executive Council issued an ultimatum requiring the government to approve the Judicial Council’s recommendations by October 30 and ensure payment of the revised salaries in November, together with arrears covering January to October 2026.
The association subsequently notified the National Labour Commission on October 23 of its intention to embark on industrial action if the matter remained unresolved. The notification was copied to the Office of the President, the Judicial Secretary, the Attorney General and Minister for Justice, the Finance Minister and the Minister responsible for Jobs, Labour and Employment Relations.
However, efforts by the National Labour Commission to prevent the industrial action did not produce an agreement before the deadline. In a letter dated October 26, the Commission directed the Minister responsible for employment to convene discussions involving JUSAG and the relevant government stakeholders and report on the outcome by November 6.
The Commission also advised the association to suspend its planned industrial action, citing Section 161 of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651), as part of its intervention to resolve the disagreement through dialogue.
JUSAG, however, considered the proposed timetable inadequate, particularly because the November 6 reporting deadline fell several days after the date fixed for the commencement of the strike. The association also questioned the composition of the proposed negotiations, arguing that an appropriate representative of the Office of the President should be involved because presidential determination is central to the approval process.
Another significant point of disagreement concerns a proposal attributed by JUSAG to the Ministry of Finance for the payment of outstanding arrears in three instalments. The association criticised the proposal, alleging that it had been prepared without adequate consultation with its leadership and did not provide a definite payment schedule. It further maintained that the proposal failed to address its central concerns satisfactorily.
These objections formed part of the reasons JUSAG gave for proceeding with the strike despite the intervention of the labour authorities. The association’s General Secretary, Abdulai Yakubu, said members had exercised considerable restraint and exhausted available avenues of engagement before taking the decision to withdraw their services.
Graphic Online+2
The Judicial Service management, however, has presented a different perspective on the way forward, insisting that efforts to resolve the dispute were already underway before the strike commenced.
In a statement issued on Saturday, October 31, and signed by Judicial Secretary Musah Ahmed, management acknowledged the frustration among employees over the delayed implementation of the 2026 salary review but appealed to JUSAG’s leadership and members to reconsider their decision and return to work while negotiations continued.
Mr Ahmed disclosed that management had been involved in high level discussions with relevant government stakeholders, which he described as engagements conducted in good faith and aimed at achieving a fair and sustainable settlement.
He maintained that the concerns of judicial employees were receiving serious attention under the leadership of the Chief Justice and appealed to the association to consider the broader national interest, particularly the implications of an interruption in the delivery of justice.
Management also emphasised that the work of every employee, from court registries to the courtroom, was indispensable to the functioning of the judicial system. It warned that prolonged staff withdrawals would have consequences extending beyond administrative inconvenience, particularly for vulnerable citizens, accused persons, families and individuals seeking legal protection or redress.
The Judicial Secretary therefore urged the workers to resume their duties while discussions continued, assuring the public that management remained committed to securing an equitable resolution.
That appeal, however, did not prevent the commencement of the industrial action on November 2.
In a further public notice dated November 1, the Judicial Service reiterated that urgent discussions were ongoing with government representatives and expressed regret over the inconvenience the dispute could cause litigants, lawyers and other users of the courts. Management assured the public that the Chief Justice was committed to restoring full judicial operations as quickly as possible.
The Judicial Service has consequently found itself attempting to balance two competing responsibilities: addressing the legitimate concerns of its workforce while ensuring that the administration of justice is not unduly compromised by the withdrawal of essential personnel.
The immediate impact of the strike therefore extends beyond the employment dispute itself. The closure of court premises threatens to interrupt the progress of criminal trials, civil litigation, commercial disputes, applications for bail, judgment delivery and other judicial proceedings. Although the precise number of cases affected has not yet been established, the disruption raises concerns about delays in resolving matters already before the courts.
For accused persons awaiting trial or determination of bail applications, prolonged interruptions could create additional uncertainty. Litigants pursuing civil claims may also face further delays, while lawyers and businesses depending on timely judicial decisions could experience operational and financial difficulties.
The situation is particularly significant because access to justice is a fundamental component of constitutional governance. Article 19 of the 1992 Constitution guarantees fair trial protections, while Article 23 requires administrative bodies and officials to act fairly and reasonably. Although the strike does not automatically extinguish these constitutional guarantees, prolonged interruptions in the machinery through which legal rights are enforced could undermine their practical enjoyment.
The present impasse consequently raises an important question about the relationship between the welfare of judicial employees and the public’s constitutional entitlement to effective justice delivery. Judicial personnel are entitled to fair remuneration and properly regulated conditions of service, but the public must not be left indefinitely without access to essential judicial services.
Resolving the disagreement will therefore require more than appeals for patience or general assurances that negotiations are ongoing. The government and Judicial Service management will need to establish a credible timetable for concluding the salary review, clarify the outstanding financial obligations, communicate the proposed payment arrangements and secure the confidence of the workers’ representatives.
Equally, JUSAG’s leadership will face pressure to consider the consequences of an indefinite shutdown for ordinary citizens who have no direct responsibility for the delay in approving the revised salaries. The association’s grievances may concern its members, but the consequences of its industrial action are being borne by thousands of people whose cases depend on the availability of functioning courts.
As of Monday, November 2, the Judicial Service says discussions with government stakeholders remain active, while JUSAG has maintained its position that its members will not return to work until its demands are addressed.
The National Labour Commission’s intervention, the Judicial Secretary’s appeal and the association’s insistence on a definite settlement have placed the responsibility for resolving the impasse squarely on the negotiating parties.
Ultimately, the dispute is no longer simply about salary adjustments or accumulated arrears. It has become a test of the government’s responsiveness to the conditions of service of public employees, the effectiveness of Ghana’s industrial dispute resolution mechanisms and the ability of the country’s judicial administration to protect citizens from the consequences of institutional disagreements.
Until a mutually acceptable agreement is reached, the greatest uncertainty will continue to confront ordinary Ghanaians who depend on the courts for justice, protection of their rights and the timely resolution of disputes.
