The New Patriotic Party (NPP) has called on Chief Justice Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie to immediately withdraw warrants issued to two High Court judges to conduct full criminal trials during the legal vacation, describing the arrangement as selective and a threat to fair trial rights. In a statement issued on Tuesday, August 11, 2026, and signed by its General Secretary, Justin Kodua Frimpong, the NPP said the decision to permit Justices Achibonga and Kocuvie-Tay to conduct criminal trials during the vacation was legally questionable because the cases before them involve persons associated with the party. The party also urged the Chief Justice to heed a petition from the Ghana Bar Association (GBA), restore what it described as the established practice governing vacation courts and rescind an ultimatum issued to an accused person whose lawyers had indicated that they were unavailable during the vacation.
The NPP’s position follows public comments by the Chief Justice defending his decision to issue the warrants, which the party said had failed to address its concerns about why only two courts had been authorized to conduct substantive criminal trials during the vacation. According to the NPP, 29 courts are currently sitting as vacation courts, although their usual role is to handle urgent applications and matters transferred from other courts rather than conduct full criminal trials. The party cited the General Jurisdiction 2 Court at the Law Court Complex as an example, saying it handles cases from General Jurisdictions 1 through 7 during the vacation. It also pointed to Tamale Court A, which serves the High Courts in Tamale, Wa and Nalerigu, and the Goaso High Court, which serves Sunyani, Wenchi, Goaso and Techiman. The NPP argued that despite this arrangement, only two vacation courts had been granted special warrants to conduct full criminal trials requiring the physical presence of accused persons and defence lawyers.
It questioned why those two courts had been selected, particularly because, according to the party, all the affected cases involve individuals linked to the NPP. The NPP said serious criminal cases, including murder, rape, narcotics and armed robbery matters, are ordinarily adjourned until after the legal vacation. It therefore questioned what it described as the selective urgency surrounding the cases involving NPP-linked persons. The party alleged that the arrangement was aimed at securing the continued prosecution and possible incarceration of its members rather than serving the broader interests of justice. It also referred to the trial of Asante Regional Chairman of the NPP, Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, alleging that the case had been expedited to conviction.
The New Patriotic Party said the Chief Justice had been formally petitioned over the matter and that lawyers representing the accused persons had written to him on August 5, 2026, informing him of their unavailability during the legal vacation and asking that the warrants be withdrawn. It said the Ghana Bar Association subsequently wrote to the Chief Justice on August 10, reminding him of the established practice concerning vacation courts. According to the NPP, the Bar Association’s position was that vacation courts do not ordinarily conduct full trials, particularly where defence counsel have notified the court of their unavailability. The party criticized the decision to maintain the warrants despite those representations, saying the development had created tension between the judiciary and the legal profession.
The party further pointed to proceedings in one of the two courts authorized to conduct vacation trials as evidence of what it considers to be the practical consequences of the Chief Justice’s decision. It said a judge, aware that defence counsel had notified the court of their unavailability, adjourned a case for less than a week and directed the accused person to obtain a new lawyer within days or personally conduct the cross-examination of a prosecution witness. The NPP said the judge further indicated that the trial would continue until the Chief Justice revoked the warrant. The party however invoked Article 19(2)(f) of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees an accused person’s right to defend himself or herself through a lawyer of his or her choice. It argued that proceeding with a trial when the accused’s chosen counsel was unavailable could raise serious questions about the protection of fair trial rights.
The NPP also broadened its criticism to the circumstances surrounding the Chief Justice’s appointment, referring to the controversial removal of former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo. The party alleged that the process leading to Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s elevation was politically influenced, while acknowledging that his confirmation was ultimately completed through the constitutional process. It said those circumstances made it even more important for the Chief Justice to demonstrate independence and avoid conduct that could create an appearance of political bias. The NPP further alleged that the vacation trials appeared to align with what it described as the Attorney-General’s agenda against NPP figures. It stressed, however, that the Judiciary should remain institutionally independent and should not become an extension of the Attorney-General’s Office.
The party is therefore demanding that the Chief Justice withdraw the warrants authorizing the two vacation trials, allow the affected cases to resume when the legal term reopens, and accept the Ghana Bar Association’s concerns regarding the established practice governing vacation courts. The statement also wants the ultimatum issued to an accused person whose counsel was unavailable to be rescinded, arguing that no accused person should be compelled to stand trial without the lawyer of his or her choice where the law protects that right. The NPP said it remains committed to the rule of law, judicial independence and equality before the law. It warned that it would resist, through what it described as lawful means, any attempt to use the courts selectively against its members or any other Ghanaian.
By: Joyce Owusu
