Kpemka vs Deputy AG: Ghana Supreme Court Weighs Speedy Trials

• The Supreme Court is set to decide on the constitutionality of the Chief Justice's directive allowing selected criminal trials to continue during the legal vacation.
• Joseph Kpemka argues that the Constitution guarantees speedy trials for all cases, not just select ones.
• The ongoing legal challenge filed by MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah seeks to halt the implementation of the Chief Justice's directive.
• Several ongoing criminal proceedings have been affected by the injunction application before the Supreme Court.

The expedited justice that is being spoken about in the Constitution is talking about all cases, not only selective cases.

The debate over speedy trials in Ghana has reached a critical juncture, with the Supreme Court poised to make a landmark decision on the Chief Justice's directive allowing selected criminal cases to continue during the legal vacation. At the heart of this controversy is the interpretation of constitutional provisions governing the administration of justice. According to Joseph Kpemka, lawyer for former NPA CEO Mustapha Abdul-Hamid, the Constitution guarantees speedy trials for all cases, not just select ones. This assertion has sparked a heated exchange between Kpemka and Deputy Attorney-General Justice Srem-Sai, with the latter's comments on PM Express reigniting concerns about selective justice. The issue is further complicated by the ongoing legal challenge filed by MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah at the Supreme Court, which seeks to halt the implementation of the Chief Justice's directive.

Kpemka's argument centers on the Constitution's recognition of expeditious trials as a means to ensure cases are resolved through acquittal or conviction. However, he contends that this provision does not authorize the prioritization of particular cases over others. In fact, Kpemka suggests that the Constitution's emphasis on speedy justice applies uniformly across all cases before the courts. This interpretation has significant implications for ongoing cases like Mustapha Abdul-Hamid's, which have been affected by the injunction application before the Supreme Court. The court's decision will ultimately determine whether the Chief Justice's directive is consistent with constitutional provisions governing the administration of justice.

The Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutionality of the Chief Justice's directive has far-reaching implications for several ongoing criminal proceedings. The Accra High Court has already adjourned proceedings in the Mustapha Abdul-Hamid case to August 27, while other high-profile trials like the Buffer Stock and National Signals Bureau cases have been halted pending the outcome of the legal challenge. If the Supreme Court upholds the Chief Justice's directive, it could lead to a selective approach to expedited justice, raising concerns about fairness and equality before the law.

Lawyers should watch for the Supreme Court's decision on whether the Chief Justice's directive allowing selected criminal trials to continue during the legal vacation is consistent with constitutional provisions governing the administration of justice, which could impact ongoing cases like Mustapha Abdul-Hamid's.

Source: Original reporting via JoyNews