The Supreme Court of Ghana has dismissed an application by Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, the Member of Parliament for Ofoase-Ayirebi. This application aimed to halt selected criminal trials during the current legal vacation. Justice Gabriel Pwamang, sitting as a single Supreme Court judge, issued the dismissal on Friday, August 21, 2026. This decision means the affected criminal trials can proceed as scheduled.
The ruling clears the way for these specific criminal cases to continue. The substantive legal challenge, which questions the constitutionality of the Chief Justice’s administrative warrants, is still awaiting a full hearing. Mr. Oppong Nkrumah had filed this main suit, arguing that the Chief Justice’s directive for certain High Court judges to hear criminal cases during the vacation violates Articles 17(1), 17(2), and 296(a) and (b) of the 1992 Constitution. He specifically contended that singling out cases for continuation during the legal break, which runs from August 1 to September 30, constitutes selective justice.
This legal dispute highlights ongoing discussions about judicial administration and constitutional interpretation in Ghana. The Chief Justice's warrants aim to ensure the continuous administration of justice, particularly for criminal matters. However, the challenge raises important questions about due process and equal treatment under the law. Such legal battles often draw significant public attention, influencing perceptions of the judiciary's independence and fairness. The outcome of the substantive case could set a precedent for how judicial vacations are managed in the future.
During the proceedings, Frank Davies, counsel for Mr. Oppong Nkrumah, argued that allowing trials to continue could harm accused persons. He specifically noted concerns about compromised legal representation if judges proceed without defense lawyers. Mr. Davies stated, “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.” This emphasizes the non-monetary, fundamental rights at stake in such legal processes.
Conversely, Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai opposed the injunction application. He argued that Mr. Oppong Nkrumah failed to meet the necessary requirements for an interlocutory injunction. Dr. Srem-Sai explained that the court needed to assess whether a serious question existed, if refusing the injunction would cause irreparable harm, and where the balance of convenience lay. He further argued that the application confused the Chief Justice’s administrative duties with the judicial functions of individual High Court judges. He suggested that dissatisfaction with a trial judge’s decision should be addressed through an application for certiorari, not through 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 contended that the Chief Justice, being challenged on an administrative decision, should have separate legal representation. Justice Pwamang dismissed this preliminary objection on Thursday. The judge confirmed that the Chief Justice had been properly served and had indicated his representation. He added that the Attorney-General’s authorization of legal representation did not diminish the Attorney-General’s own standing as a defendant in the case. The full reasons for this decision will be detailed in the comprehensive ruling on the injunction application.
The Supreme Court’s decision to allow vacation trials to continue has immediate implications for ongoing criminal cases. It means that accused persons and their legal teams must prepare to proceed during the legal break. This ruling also signals the court's initial stance on the Chief Justice's administrative powers, even as the broader constitutional challenge remains unresolved. Legal experts and civil society organizations will closely monitor the substantive case. Its outcome could significantly impact judicial practice and the rights of individuals within Ghana's legal system. The decision underscores the judiciary's role in balancing administrative efficiency with fundamental human rights.