Citizen sues AG and CJ over legal vacation

A private citizen, Elorm Kwami Gorni, has invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of Ghana’s legal vacation arrangements, arguing that the system denies litigants timely access to justice. Mr Gorni has sued the Attorney General, Dominic Ayine, and the Chief Justice, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, over the suspension of sittings at the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal during the annual legal vacation. The suit, filed on July 28, 2026, is grounded on Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution.

Challenge to two-month suspension
At the heart of the case is the practice of completely suspending sittings of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal from August 1 to September 30 each year.
Mr Gorni contends that the arrangement creates significant delays for litigants whose cases are pending before the country’s two highest appellate courts.
While the High Courts continue to operate on a limited basis during the legal vacation through designated vacation courts, he argues that the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal do not sit throughout the two-month period.
According to him, litigants are consequently compelled to wait until the end of the vacation before certain matters can be heard.

Claim of violation of constitutional rights
Mr Gorni argues that the suspension of sittings undermines the constitutional right of citizens to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. He maintains that the two-month interruption can delay a wide range of proceedings, including appeals, constitutional actions, applications for stay of execution, interlocutory applications and judicial review proceedings. He therefore wants the Supreme Court to determine whether the legal vacation system is consistent with the constitutional guarantees of access to justice and fair administrative action.

Rules under constitutional scrutiny
The plaintiff is specifically asking the Supreme Court to declare 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), unconstitutional to the extent that they permit the suspension of sittings of the two courts during the legal vacation. He argues that the rules, together with the administrative practice through which they are implemented, are inconsistent with several provisions of the 1992 Constitution.

These include Articles 19(1), 23, 33, 125 and 296, which respectively relate to fair trial guarantees, administrative justice, enforcement of fundamental rights, the judicial power of the state and the exercise of discretionary powers.
Administrative practice also challenged
Mr Gorni’s case goes beyond the validity of the specific court rules. He argues that the organisation of the judicial calendar and the determination of when courts sit are administrative functions. As such, he contends, those functions must be exercised fairly and reasonably in accordance with Article 23 of the Constitution.

In his view, the administrative implementation of the legal vacation should not result in a complete interruption of the constitutional functions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.

Not challenging judges’ annual leave

Mr Gorni has made it clear that his challenge is not an attempt to deny judges their entitlement to annual leave or necessary periods of rest.
Rather, he wants the Supreme Court to determine whether judicial leave can be organised in a manner that allows the appellate courts to continue performing their constitutional functions throughout the legal year. He argues that judicial officers can take their annual leave without requiring the two appellate courts to shut down completely for two months.

Rotational sittings proposed
As part of the reliefs being sought, Mr Gorni is asking the Supreme Court to direct the Chief Justice to consider alternative arrangements to ensure continuity of judicial work during the legal vacation. Among the options he proposes are rotational sittings, vacation panels and staggered judicial leave.
He maintains that such arrangements would allow cases to continue to be heard while still preserving judges’ entitlement to annual rest.

Increased number of justices
The plaintiff further argues that the increased number of justices serving on the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal makes alternative arrangements practicable. In his view, the courts could operate through a system in which some justices take leave while others remain available to hear urgent or pending matters.

He says such an approach would help prevent the complete suspension of appellate proceedings and reduce delays in the administration of justice.

Constitutional question before the Supreme Court
The case has brought Ghana’s longstanding legal vacation system before the Supreme Court for constitutional scrutiny. At stake is whether the existing two-month suspension of sittings at the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal is compatible with the Constitution, particularly the principles of timely justice, fair administrative action and access to the courts.

The Supreme Court will therefore be called upon to determine whether the legal vacation arrangements can continue in their current form or whether alternative mechanisms are required to ensure that the constitutional functions of the appellate courts remain operational throughout the year.
If you want, I can also turn this into a more newspaper-like Ghanaian news report, with a stronger headline, intro/lead, and tighter paragraphs suitable for publication.