The New Patriotic Party (NPP) has accused Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie of exhibiting a “partisan disposition” and facilitating “selective justice” by issuing special warrants for two High Court judges to conduct substantive criminal trials during the legal vacation. This accusation, made in a statement dated Tuesday, August 11, and signed by General Secretary Justin Kodua Frimpong, highlights a significant point of contention between the ruling party and the judiciary.
The NPP stated it was “deeply troubled” by the Chief Justice’s defence of the warrants granted to Justices Francis Achibonga and Audrey Kocuvie-Tay. The party questioned why only these two courts had been authorised to conduct full criminal trials when other vacation courts across the country were handling mainly motions and urgent interlocutory applications. The affected cases involve persons associated with the NPP, including former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and former National Food Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO) Chief Executive Officer Hanan Abdul-Wahab, who are facing criminal proceedings over allegations including causing financial loss to the state.
This development fits into a broader narrative of political tension and scrutiny of state institutions in Ghana. Accusations of political interference in judicial processes are not new, but this specific instance raises questions about the impartiality of the justice system, especially concerning high-profile cases involving political figures. The NPP’s comparison of this situation to the “indecent haste” surrounding the trial and conviction of Ashanti Regional Chairman Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, underscores their belief in a pattern of targeted legal action.
The NPP argued that the decision to continue these trials during the vacation amounted to unequal treatment. They asked, “If the vacation can pause the trial of a murder suspect, why can it not pause the trial of political opponents of the Government?” This rhetorical question from the party suggests a perceived double standard in the application of legal procedures. The party described what it called “selective urgency” as evidence of an alleged agenda to incarcerate NPP personalities.
Defence lawyers in the affected cases, including Zoe, Akyea & Co. and Dame & Partners, wrote to the Chief Justice on August 5, notifying him of their unavailability during the legal vacation and asking that the warrants be withdrawn. The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) subsequently petitioned the Chief Justice on August 10, reminding him of what it considers the established practice that Vacation Courts do not conduct substantive trials. Despite these petitions, the warrants remain in force.
The Chief Justice has defended the arrangement, stating that decisions on adjournments are matters for the courts and cannot simply be treated as administrative issues arising from the legal vacation. This stance indicates a firm position from the judiciary, asserting its independence in managing court proceedings. The NPP cited proceedings on Tuesday, August 11, in one of the affected cases, where a vacation judge reportedly adjourned proceedings for less than a week after defence counsel indicated they were unavailable. According to the NPP, the judge directed the accused to secure new lawyers within the period or personally conduct the cross-examination of a prosecution witness, indicating he would continue sitting until the Chief Justice revoked the warrant.
This situation could have significant implications for public trust in the judiciary and the perceived fairness of Ghana’s legal system. The NPP’s invocation of Article 19(2)(f) of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees an accused person the right to a fair hearing, highlights the constitutional dimensions of this dispute. Observers will be watching closely to see how the judiciary responds to these accusations and whether the warrants are eventually withdrawn or modified. The ongoing tension between the ruling party and the Chief Justice could influence future political discourse and potentially impact the upcoming general elections, as issues of justice and fairness resonate deeply with the electorate.