In a filing dated 12 August 2026, legal researcher Mr Elorm Kwami Gorni asked the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional the practice of a two-month "legal vacation" during which the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court normally do not sit. The suit, brought under Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution, contends that the pause infringes Article 19(1), which guarantees a fair hearing within a reasonable time, and violates Articles 23 and 33, which protect fair administrative justice and the enforcement of fundamental rights.
The complaint focuses on Rule 61(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules (1997) and Rule 82 of the Supreme Court Rules (1996), both of which authorise a complete halt to court sittings from 1 August to 30 September each year. Gorni argues that these rules, by suspending all judicial business for two months, prevent the timely determination of cases and contravene the Constitution's continuing obligation to organise the judiciary so that justice is accessible to all citizens.
The petition seeks an order declaring the affected provisions unconstitutional and directing the Chief Justice to institute alternative arrangements—such as rotational vacation sittings—in which alternate panels continue to hear and decide matters even during the designated break.
This challenge raises a significant constitutional question: whether a rules-based pause in the operations of the highest courts can coexist with the constitutional right to a prompt hearing. It is distinct from the Supreme Court's separate August 2026 ruling that permitted selected High Courts to conduct criminal trials during the vacation period, which addressed trial-level court operations rather than the vacation rules governing the Superior Courts.
What remains to be decided
The reported filing asks the Supreme Court to examine the legality of the superior courts' vacation arrangements. A filed challenge states the applicant's case; it is not a judgment that the rules are unconstitutional. The court will have to consider the legal basis for the arrangements, the rights relied upon and the evidence of their practical effect.
The public discussion should therefore separate the relief sought from the outcome, and distinguish vacation rules for different courts. Any eventual ruling will be better understood by reading the court's reasoning and orders alongside the reported challenge.