Prof Azar tears apart Oppong Nkrumah’s suit in explosive court ruling

Prof Azar Rips Apart Oppong Nkrumah's Suit: A Closer Look at the Legal Vacation Fiasco

Prof. Azar has filed a suit against the Chief Justice's decision to have selected criminal trials continue during the legal vacation. The suit was issued by Prof. Azar's nephew, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Otumfuo Seeks Funds to Complete Boankra Inland Port Project

The Constitutionality of Selected Justice

Prof. Azar's suit alleges that the Chief Justice's decision to have selected judges sit during the legal vacation is unconstitutional. The Chief Justice has directed selected judges to sit and continue hearing pending criminal trials. Prof. Azar argues that this decision is inconsistent with Articles 17(1), 17(2), 23, and 296(a) and (b) of the Constitution.

Selective Justice: A Misunderstanding of Equality Before the Law

Prof. Azar's suit also alleges that promoting and facilitating the hearing of "special criminal cases" during the legal vacation amounts to selective justice. However, Prof. Azar argues that this is a misunderstanding of equality before the law. Article 17(1) says "All persons shall be equal before the law," but it does not say that every case must be heard on the same day, at the same speed, by the same judge or according to an identical timetable.

The Right to Health: A Misinterpretation of the Constitution

Prof. Azar's suit also alleges that directing some judges to conduct selected criminal trials during the legal vacation violates the right to health of affected members of the Bar and Judicial Service. However, Prof. Azar argues that this is a misinterpretation of the Constitution. Article 24(1) guarantees every person the right to work under satisfactory, safe, and healthy conditions, but it does not say that judges must not work during the legal vacation.

Order 79 Rule 1(1) of C.I. 47: A Misunderstanding of Discretionary Power

Prof. Azar's suit also alleges that Order 79 Rule 1(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), is unconstitutional. However, Prof. Azar argues that this is a misunderstanding of discretionary power. Article 296 requires discretionary power to be exercised fairly and candidly, and not arbitrarily, capriciously, or with bias. Prof. Azar argues that the Chief Justice has not exercised discretionary power arbitrarily, but rather has made a rational decision about which cases to prioritize.

A Question of Constitutional Violations

Prof. Azar's suit raises questions about the constitutional violations alleged. The Chief Justice has directed selected judges to sit and continue hearing pending criminal trials. Prof. Azar argues that this decision is consistent with the Constitution, but Oppong Nkrumah argues that it is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will now consider the suit and determine whether the Chief Justice's decision is constitutional or not.

The outcome of this suit will have significant implications for the administration of justice in the country. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Oppong Nkrumah, it could lead to changes in the way the Chief Justice exercises discretionary power. However, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Chief Justice, it could reinforce the Chief Justice's authority to make decisions about the administration of justice. The case is set to be heard in the Supreme Court soon, and the outcome is eagerly awaited.

Source: JOY