Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr. Justice Edem Srem-Sai, has affirmed that judges are not obligated to refer every constitutional claim to the Supreme Court. He clarified that Ghanaian law grants trial judges the discretion to assess whether a genuine issue of constitutional interpretation truly exists before making such a referral. This statement addresses recent public discourse and criticism regarding judicial processes.
Dr. Srem-Sai's comments directly respond to the New Patriotic Party's (NPP) critique of a High Court decision. The NPP argued that the court's refusal to refer constitutional questions in the trial of Bernard Antwi Boasiako, known as Chairman Wontumi, contributed to a miscarriage of justice. The Deputy Attorney-General, speaking on Joy FM's Newsnight on July 21, 2026, underscored that while a fair trial is a fundamental right, the law empowers judges to determine the necessity of a Supreme Court referral.
This judicial clarification is crucial for Ghana's legal framework and its impact on the administration of justice. The efficient functioning of the judiciary, particularly the distinction between trial court jurisdiction and the Supreme Court's interpretative role, is vital for economic stability and investor confidence. Clear legal processes reduce uncertainty, which is a key factor for businesses operating in Ghana. The legal system's integrity directly influences the broader economic narrative, ensuring predictable outcomes in commercial disputes and regulatory compliance.
Dr. Srem-Sai elaborated on the legal precedent guiding these decisions. He stated, "What the judge said was clear. He didn't see any real or genuine issue on the interpretation they were advancing." He explained that established case law requires a trial court to examine if a constitutional question is real and substantial before invoking the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. This principle prevents unnecessary delays and ensures that the Supreme Court's resources are focused on genuine constitutional matters.
The Deputy Attorney-General also addressed specific arguments made by the defence in the Chairman Wontumi trial. The defence contended that the legislation was vague because the offence was defined in one section of an Act, while the punishment was outlined in another. Dr. Srem-Sai dismissed this argument, describing it as a common and normal legislative drafting technique rather than evidence of constitutional uncertainty. He cited the Minerals and Mining Act as an example, where offences are specified in particular provisions and penalties are prescribed in a separate section.
He further maintained that if a defence disagrees with a trial judge's interpretation, the correct course of action is to appeal the decision through the appellate courts. Insisting that a court is bound to refer every constitutional claim would lead to an "absurd position of the law," according to Dr. Srem-Sai. This emphasis on the appellate process reinforces the structured nature of Ghana's legal system and its mechanisms for dispute resolution.
The implications of this clarification are significant for legal practitioners and the public. It reinforces the principle of judicial discretion and the importance of a clear understanding of legal procedures. Future cases involving constitutional claims will likely see judges applying this standard more rigorously, potentially streamlining judicial processes. This approach could enhance the efficiency of the courts, ultimately contributing to a more predictable and stable legal environment, which is beneficial for Ghana's economic development and rule of law.