Legal researcher challenges judicial vacation at Supreme Court

– Mr Elorm Kwami Gorni, a legal researcher, has asked the Supreme Court to declare Ghana's two-month judicial vacation unconstitutional.

Mr Gorni argues that the annual vacation, during which the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court generally do not sit, substantially restricts access to justice and delays the determination of cases.

He made the claim in a suit against the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice, filed under Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution, which provide for the enforcement and interpretation of the Constitution.

The suit challenges the legal vacation observed by the Superior Courts from August 1 to September 30 each year.

During the period, the High Court continues to hear urgent matters through vacation courts, while the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court generally suspend sittings.

Mr Gorni contends that the practice violates Article 19(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees a fair hearing within a reasonable time.

He argued that it is inconsistent with Article 23, which guarantees fair administrative justice, and Article 33, relating to the enforcement of fundamental human rights and the right of appeal.

Mr Gorni also relied on Articles 125 and 296, which respectively concern the administration of justice and the exercise of discretionary powers.

He is seeking a declaration that the legal vacation, to the extent that it suspends or substantially restricts the hearing and determination of cases, is unconstitutional.

Mr Gorni is also asking the Court to declare unconstitutional the suspension of sittings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court during the two-month period.

The researcher is 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), insofar as they provide for the suspension of sittings during the legal vacation.

He is seeking an order striking down the affected provisions to the extent that they authorise or permit the continuous suspension of court sittings during the designated period.

Mr Gorni has asked the Supreme Court to interpret Article 19(1) as imposing a continuing obligation on the State and Judiciary to organise the justice system to ensure timely access to the Superior Courts.

He wants the Court to direct the Chief Justice to make administrative and procedural arrangements, including rotational vacation sittings, to enable the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court to continue hearing and determining cases during the period.

Mr Gorni contends that such arrangements would protect the constitutional right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time while allowing judicial officers and lawyers to observe the vacation.

GNA