Supreme Court to rule on bid to halt vacation trials on August 21

A Supreme Court ruling expected on Friday, August 21, 2026, will determine whether selected High Court criminal trials can continue during the judiciary’s legal vacation.

The application was brought by Ofoase-Ayirebi MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, who is seeking to temporarily stop the operation of a warrant issued by the Chief Justice authorising some High Court judges to sit during the vacation period.

Justice Gabriel Pwamang, sitting as a single Supreme Court judge, fixed the ruling date after hearing arguments from both sides on Thursday, August 20.

The legal vacation runs from August 1 to September 30.

Mr Oppong Nkrumah’s lawyers want the Supreme Court to suspend the warrant until the final determination of a substantive constitutional case challenging its validity.

His counsel, Frank Davies, argued that the case raises serious constitutional questions about the limits of the Chief Justice’s administrative powers.

He said the exercise of that power must satisfy Article 296 of the Constitution, which requires discretionary authority to be exercised fairly and in accordance with due process.

The applicant’s position is that allowing full trials to proceed during the legal vacation, especially in selected cases, could affect the rights of accused persons.

Mr Davies told the court that lawyers may be unavailable during the vacation, yet some trial courts have declined adjournment requests because of the Chief Justice’s warrant.

He argued that accused persons could suffer prejudice if trials proceed without their preferred counsel.

For the applicant, the risk is not merely administrative.

He submitted that if the Supreme Court later finds the warrant unconstitutional, trials conducted under it could weaken or defeat the purpose of the substantive case.

Mr Davies therefore urged the court to preserve the status quo by granting the interlocutory injunction.

The State opposed the application.

Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai argued that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had not met the legal threshold for an injunction.

He said the applicant must show a serious issue to be tried, demonstrate irreparable harm and establish that the balance of convenience favours the grant of the order.

According to the Deputy Attorney-General, the application fails on those requirements.

Dr Srem-Sai argued that the warrant issued by the Chief Justice only deals with the administrative arrangement for vacation sittings.

He said it does not control how individual judges conduct trials or decide applications before them.

The State’s case is that matters such as adjournments, trial management and whether a particular case should proceed remain judicial decisions for the judge hearing the case.

Dr Srem-Sai said Mr Oppong Nkrumah’s arguments wrongly combine the Chief Justice’s administrative function with the independent judicial powers of High Court judges.

He further argued that where a party is dissatisfied with a ruling by a trial judge, the proper remedy may be judicial review or other processes such as certiorari, not necessarily a constitutional action before the Supreme Court.

The Deputy Attorney-General also rejected the claim that trials cannot be conducted during the legal vacation.

He said the applicant had not established any rule that bars such proceedings.

On the question of harm, the State said Mr Oppong Nkrumah had not shown any personal injury he would suffer if the injunction was refused.

Dr Srem-Sai also argued that the public interest favours the continuation of criminal trials rather than their suspension.

Justice Pwamang will rule on Friday whether the vacation trials should be halted while the substantive constitutional challenge continues.