Supreme Court dismisses application to stop legal vacation trials
Court Clears Way for Selected Trials
The Supreme Court has dismissed an application by Ofoase-Ayirebi Member of Parliament, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, seeking to stop selected criminal trials from continuing during the legal vacation. His Lordship Justice Gabriel Pwamang, sitting as a single judge of the Supreme Court, ruled on Friday, August 21, 2026, that the applicant had not established a proper case for the granting of an interlocutory injunction. The decision allows the affected courts to continue sitting under administrative warrants issued by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie.
Constitutional Challenge Remains Pending
Despite dismissing the injunction application, the Supreme Court has not yet determined the substantive constitutional challenge brought by Mr Oppong Nkrumah. The former Information Minister is challenging the constitutionality of warrants issued by the Chief Justice directing selected High Court judges to continue hearing criminal cases during the legal vacation, which runs from August 1 to September 30. Mr. Oppong Nkrumah argues that the directive is inconsistent with provisions of the 1992 Constitution, particularly Articles 17 and 296. He contends that the arrangement amounts to selective justice. He subsequently asked the Supreme Court to suspend the warrants through an interlocutory injunction until the substantive case is determined.
Trials Affected by the Decision
The cases affected by the Chief Justice’s administrative arrangement include the trial of former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his wife. The proceedings also include the trial of former National Food Buffer Stock Company Chief Executive Officer, Hanan Abdul-Wahab, among other criminal matters. With the injunction application dismissed, the selected courts are now free to continue hearing those cases during the legal vacation.
Lawyers Accept Court’s Decision
Speaking after Friday’s ruling, counsel for Mr Oppong Nkrumah, Frank Davies, said the legal team accepted the court’s decision and would wait for the full written ruling before advising their client. He said lawyers appearing before the courts must be prepared to accept whatever decision is reached on an application. “When you come to court, you come to court with an anticipatory mind,” Mr Davies said, explaining that an injunction application could either be granted or refused.
He stressed that lawyers were not expected to condemn judges when rulings went against their clients.
“It is not in our place as lawyers to condemn the judge. We can only critique,” he said.
Legal Team Awaits Written Ruling
Mr Davies said the legal team would abide by the Supreme Court’s decision while awaiting the detailed reasoning behind the ruling. He disclosed that the lawyers had applied to the court registrar for a certified true copy of the ruling. According to him, the legal team would study the written decision carefully before deciding on the next course of action. “We shall apply for when the ruling is handed to us, we shall read in detail the written ruling and appropriately advise our client,” he stated.
Substantive Case Still to Be Determined
The dismissal of the interlocutory injunction means the selected criminal trials can proceed during the legal vacation. However, Friday’s decision does not settle the larger constitutional dispute over whether the Chief Justice has the authority to direct selected High Court judges to sit during the vacation.
The Supreme Court will still hear and determine the substantive suit filed by Mr Oppong Nkrumah.
The eventual ruling on that case will determine whether the administrative warrants and the arrangement allowing selected judges to hear criminal cases during the legal vacation are constitutionally valid.
