A legal researcher and academic, Elorm Kwami Gorni, has gone to the Supreme Court challenging Ghana’s two-month legal vacation, arguing that the practice can delay justice and restrict people’s access to the courts.
Mr Gorni has sued the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice, asking the Supreme Court to declare the practice unconstitutional to the extent that it prevents or substantially limits the hearing and determination of cases.
Under Ghana’s current court calendar, the Superior Courts of Judicature observe legal vacation from August 1 to September 30 each year.
While the High Court continues to hear urgent matters through designated vacation courts, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court do not ordinarily sit during the two-month period.
Mr Gorni argues that this creates a significant gap for litigants whose cases require the attention of the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court, particularly where the matter is urgent.
He says people who need constitutional relief, want to enforce their fundamental human rights or have an appeal pending before the higher courts may have to wait until October before their cases can be heard.
The researcher has therefore invoked Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution, which provide avenues for constitutional enforcement and interpretation by the Supreme Court.
His case is based on the argument that the legal vacation regime is inconsistent with several constitutional guarantees.
These include the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time under Article 19(1), the right to fair administrative justice under Article 23 and the right to seek redress for violations of fundamental human rights under Article 33.
He also relies on Article 125, which sets out the constitutional role of the Judiciary in the administration of justice, as well as Article 296, which requires discretionary powers to be exercised fairly and reasonably.
Mr Gorni is asking the Supreme Court to declare that legal vacation, insofar as it causes undue delays in the administration of justice or unjustifiably restricts access to the courts, is inconsistent with the Constitution.
He is also specifically challenging Rule 61(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (C.I. 19), and Rule 82 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I. 16), to the extent that they permit the two courts to suspend their sittings for the entire legal vacation.
He wants the court to strike down those provisions to the extent of their inconsistency with the Constitution.
A further relief sought by the researcher is for the Supreme Court to affirm that the constitutional right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time places a continuing obligation on the State and the Judiciary to ensure that the justice system remains institutionally available to deal with cases in a timely manner.
He is also asking the court to direct the Chief Justice to introduce administrative arrangements, including rotational vacation sittings, to allow the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court to continue hearing cases during the period designated as legal vacation.
The case could put Ghana’s long-standing approach to court vacations under constitutional scrutiny and raise broader questions about how the Judiciary can balance the need for judicial breaks with the constitutional right to timely access to justice.
