SC dismisses Oppong Nkrumah's application seeking to stop legal vacation trial of selected cases

The Supreme Court has refused to stop selected High Court criminal trials from proceeding during the ongoing legal vacation.

Justice Gabriel Pwamang, sitting as a single judge of the Supreme Court, dismissed the interlocutory injunction application filed by Ofoase-Ayirebi MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah on Friday, August 21, 2026.

The decision means the affected criminal trials may continue while the substantive constitutional challenge against the Chief Justice’s administrative warrants remains pending.

Mr Oppong Nkrumah had asked the court to suspend the operation of warrants issued by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie directing selected High Court judges to hear criminal cases during the legal vacation.

The legal vacation runs from August 1 to September 30.

In his substantive suit, the MP argues that the warrants violate Articles 17(1), 17(2) and 296(a) and (b) of the 1992 Constitution.

He contends that allowing only selected criminal cases to proceed during the period amounts to unequal treatment and raises concerns about selective justice.

His lawyers therefore filed the injunction application to halt the trials until the Supreme Court determines the main constitutional case.

Arguing the application, counsel for Mr Oppong Nkrumah, Frank Davies, said the continuation of the trials could prejudice accused persons.

He submitted that the rights of accused persons may be affected where proceedings continue despite the unavailability of their lawyers.

According to him, forcing accused persons to conduct their own defence could compromise their right to legal representation.

“The harm which will be occasioned to the accused is not something that can be quantified by way of monetary compensation. It is something that affects the rights and liberties of the accused persons, and monetary awards cannot compensate for that,” Mr Davies argued.

The Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, opposed the application.

He argued that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had not met the legal threshold for the grant of an interlocutory injunction.

Dr Srem-Sai said the court had to consider whether there was a serious question to be tried, whether refusing the injunction would cause irreparable harm, and where the balance of convenience lay.

He also argued that the applicant had wrongly combined the Chief Justice’s administrative role with the independent judicial functions of High Court judges.

According to him, the Chief Justice’s warrants only authorised vacation sittings and did not direct individual judges on how to conduct cases before them.

Dr Srem-Sai maintained that where a party is unhappy with a decision by a trial judge to proceed with a case, the proper remedy may be judicial review, including certiorari, rather than invoking the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.

Before the main arguments on the injunction, Mr Davies also objected to the Deputy Attorney-General representing both the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General.

He argued that since the Chief Justice’s administrative decision was under challenge, the Chief Justice ought to have separate legal representation.

Justice Pwamang dismissed that objection on Thursday, August 20.

The judge held that the Chief Justice had been served with the processes and had indicated his representation.

He also stated that the Attorney-General’s authorisation of representation did not affect the Attorney-General’s own standing as a defendant in the case.

Justice Pwamang indicated that the full reasons for that ruling would be contained in his decision on the injunction application.

Although the injunction has been dismissed, Mr Oppong Nkrumah’s substantive constitutional case remains before the Supreme Court.