On 3 September 2026 the Supreme Court of Ghana delivered a landmark judgment confirming that the judiciary may continue limited criminal proceedings during the statutory legal vacation that runs from 1 August to 30 September. The Court rejected a review application lodged by Member of Parliament Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, who argued that the Chief Justice’s warrants permitting “selective” vacation sittings breached Articles 19(1) and 17(1) of the 1992 Constitution by creating unequal access to justice and infringing the right to a speedy trial. A three‑judge bench – Justices Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi (presiding), Richard Adjei‑Frimpong and Gbiel Simon Suurbaareh – held that the application was “without merit” and failed to meet the procedural threshold for reviewing a prior single‑judge decision.
The Court referred to the earlier ruling of Justice Gabriel Pwamang dated 21 August 2026, which interpreted the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial and recognised the Chief Justice’s administrative discretion to issue warrants that allow selected criminal cases to be heard during the vacation period. By upholding those warrants, the Supreme Court affirmed that the legal vacation does not automatically suspend all criminal proceedings; instead, it permits the judiciary to address urgent matters and alleviate case backlogs while preserving the orderly administration of the courts.
The judgment also clarified that the Attorney‑General may represent the Chief Justice in challenges to his administrative functions, rejecting the applicant’s request for independent counsel. Legal analysts note that the decision reinforces the principle that procedural adjustments to court calendars must be grounded in constitutional authority and cannot be overturned solely on grounds of perceived unfairness. The Court announced that full reasons would be released on 7 September 2026, which should further delineate the limits of judicial discretion during vacation periods.
Moving forward, litigants are expected to file urgent applications before the “special vacation courts” or pursue alternative remedies, as the Supreme Court indicated no intention to revisit the policy absent a compelling constitutional challenge. The ruling thus solidifies the current vacation framework and defines the scope of judicial review over the Chief Justice’s administrative warrants, providing greater certainty for the administration of criminal justice in Ghana.
The decision represents a significant affirmation of the judiciary’s ability to manage its docket efficiently while respecting constitutional guarantees, and it sets a precedent for future challenges to procedural innovations within the Ghanaian legal system.