NPP accuses Chief Justice of selective and partisan justice over sitting during legal vacation

By: Godbless Asaana
The New Patriotic Party (NPP) has accused Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie of adopting a “partisan disposition” and overseeing what it describes as “selective justice” following the issuance of special warrants allowing two High Court judges to conduct substantive criminal trials during the legal vacation.

In a statement dated Tuesday, August 11, the NPP raised concerns over the Chief Justice’s justification for the warrants granted to Justices Francis Achibonga and Audrey Kocuvie-Tay.

The party questioned why the two courts had been allowed to continue with full criminal trials while other High Courts across the country were largely restricted during the legal vacation to hearing motions and urgent interlocutory matters.

“The Chief Justice has failed to answer one simple question. Why only these two courts, and why only these cases?” the NPP asked.

The cases being heard during the vacation, according to the NPP, involve individuals linked to the party, including former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and former National Food Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO) Chief Executive Officer Hanan Abdul-Wahab.

Both men are facing criminal charges, including allegations of causing financial loss to the state.

The controversy comes after the Chief Justice cleared the way for two High Court judges to continue hearing the substantive criminal cases during the legal vacation, when the majority of courts are generally limited to urgent matters and interlocutory applications.

The NPP contends that the arrangement amounts to unequal treatment because other criminal proceedings have been suspended during the vacation.

“If the vacation can pause the trial of a murder suspect, why can it not pause the trial of political opponents of the Government?” the party questioned.

The NPP further alleged that one of the judges directed the accused persons to secure new legal representation within the period or personally conduct the cross-examination of a prosecution witness.

According to the party, the judge indicated that proceedings would continue until the Chief Justice revoked the warrant.

The party argued that the decision could affect the accused persons’ ability to properly prepare their defence and cited Article 19(2)(f) of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees an accused person adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence.

The NPP therefore questioned the basis for allowing the two cases to proceed during the vacation while other criminal trials had been put on hold, describing the situation as evidence of what it considers selective application of judicial procedures.