Accra: Legal luminary Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, widely known as Kwaku Azar, has voiced his opinion on the lawsuit filed by Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, Member of Parliament for Ofoase Ayirebi. The lawsuit challenges the Chief Justice's directive to hear select criminal cases during the legal vacation.
According to Ghana Web, Oppong Nkrumah's suit seeks a Supreme Court declaration that the directive is unconstitutional, arguing it promotes selective justice by allowing certain cases to proceed while others do not. The MP claims this violates the constitutional principle of equality before the law. Kwaku Azar, in a Facebook write-up dated August 14, 2026, questioned the legal foundation of the suit and defended the Chief Justice's directive as being within legal bounds.
Kwaku Azar raised questions about the perceived unfairness of the directive and challenged the notion that it was selective. He asked for clarification on which judges or accused persons were selected on improper grounds and what legal requirements the Chief Justice allegedly disregarded. Azar emphasized that judicial administration inherently involves prioritizing cases based on urgency and necessity, and he questioned the assertion that such prioritization violates constitutional principles.
The academic highlighted Oppong Nkrumah's failure to demonstrate how the directive breaches the Constitution. He pointed out that the nature of judicial administration involves making decisions about case priorities and court schedules. Azar argued that for a constitutional violation to be established, there must be more evidence than the mere fact of selecting judges for certain cases during the legal vacation.
Kwaku Azar addressed the issue of equality before the law, arguing that it does not imply identical treatment for all cases. He emphasized that judicial case management requires rational differentiation and pointed out that the Constitution prohibits discrimination based on specific grounds, such as gender or race, which are not implicated by the Chief Justice's directive.
Regarding the right to health and rest, Azar noted that Articles 24 and 36(10) of the Constitution do not mandate a two-month legal vacation. He argued that judges and lawyers can take leave at different times without halting court operations and questioned the assumption that legal vacations are a constitutional entitlement. Azar also highlighted the rights of accused persons, particularly those in custody, whose trials should not be unnecessarily delayed.
He further questioned the constitutional basis for challenging Order 79 Rule 1(1) of C.I. 47, which allows the Chief Justice to schedule court sittings as needed. Azar argued that the rule merely provides discretion, which should be exercised fairly and reasonably, rather than being inherently unconstitutional.
Azar concluded by pointing out the absence of Article 19(1) in the reliefs sought by Oppong Nkrumah. Article 19(1) guarantees a fair hearing within a reasonable time for accused persons, and Azar argued that maintaining court operations during legal vacations aligns with this constitutional requirement. He wished his nephew well in his legal pursuit but reiterated that the law must be upheld.