After weeks of rumour mongering of the resignation of a Supreme Court Judge after the court’s review verdict on the Fast Track High Courts (FTC), it has now been authoritatively established that Justice E.D.K. Adjabeng, one of the judges who dissented in that ruling is to leave the Bench in October 2002.

Justice Adjabeng, 64, who officially wrote to President John Kufuor asking for a voluntary retirement for personal reasons has had his request granted by the President. Highly-placed Judicial Service sources told the Evening News that the President accepted the Judge’s letter before he left for South Africa to attend the African Union (AU) summit. The source stated that the President, in acknowledging Justice Adjabeng’s letter, thanked him for his immense service to the state and wished him well.

The source maintained that Justice Adjabeng’s decision to call it quits had nothing to do with the 6-5 decision of the Supreme Court that set aside its 28 February 2002 verdict declaring the FTCs unconstitutional. According to the source, it is believed that the Judge cut short his career by his own candid decision.

Justice Adjabeng who became a Supreme Court Judge on 22 February 1995, joined four of his colleagues to deliver the famous February Supreme Court ruling that declared the FTCs unconstitutional. However, two months before a review panel of the court ruled and restored the constitutionality of the FTCs, Justice Adjabeng, unexpectedly sent a letter to the President asking to go on retirement, even though he still had six more years to serve on the Bench.

His decision only became public after the review verdict was delivered and it set many tongues wagging as to whether he was not forced to leave the Bench, which he joined on 15 June 1984.

The outgoing Judge took a strong view about the unconstitutionality of the FTC. In his ruling on 26 June, he stated that any attempt to create a division of the courts with distinctive features could not be valid without an amendment of the rules of the High Court. He was of the view that the FTC undermined the rule of law since it used a set of guidelines, which are different from the normal High Courts.