The Supreme Court has dismissed an application by Ofoase-Ayirebi Member of Parliament, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, seeking to halt selected criminal trials being conducted during the ongoing legal vacation.

Justice Gabriel Pwamang, sitting as a single justice of the Supreme Court, dismissed the interlocutory injunction application on Friday, August 21, 2026.

The ruling allows the affected criminal proceedings to continue while the substantive case challenging the constitutionality of administrative warrants issued by the Chief Justice remains before the apex court.

Mr Oppong Nkrumah filed the substantive suit to challenge administrative warrants issued by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, directing selected High Court judges to continue hearing certain criminal cases during the legal vacation.

The legal vacation commenced on August 1 and is scheduled to end on September 30.

The legislator argues that the directive violates Articles 17(1), 17(2), 296(a) and 296(b) of the 1992 Constitution, particularly because it allegedly singles out specific criminal cases for hearing during the vacation.

He maintains that the arrangement amounts to selective justice and raises questions about the exercise of discretionary powers.

As part of his legal action, Mr Oppong Nkrumah filed an interlocutory injunction seeking to suspend the warrants until the substantive case is determined.

Arguments before the court

At Thursday’s proceedings, counsel for the MP, Frank Davies, argued that allowing the affected cases to proceed could prejudice accused persons.

He was particularly concerned about situations where judges may direct proceedings to continue despite the absence of defence lawyers.

According to him, such an approach could undermine the constitutional right of accused persons to legal representation and potentially expose them to serious prejudice.

“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 told the court.

The Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, opposed the application, arguing that the applicant had failed to meet the requirements for the grant of an interlocutory injunction.

He submitted that 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.

Dr Srem-Sai also argued that the application wrongly conflated the Chief Justice’s administrative responsibilities with the judicial functions of individual High Court judges.

He maintained that if counsel was dissatisfied with a trial judge’s decision to proceed with a case, the appropriate remedy would be an application for certiorari rather than an invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.

Court rejects objection to Attorney-General’s representation

The proceedings also featured an objection from Mr Davies over the Deputy Attorney-General’s decision to represent both the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General.

Counsel argued that because the Chief Justice was being challenged over an administrative decision, he ought to have separate legal representation.

Justice Pwamang dismissed the objection on Thursday.

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

He further ruled that the Attorney-General’s authorisation for the Deputy Attorney-General to represent the Chief Justice did not diminish the Attorney-General’s own standing as a defendant in the case.

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

With the application now dismissed, the selected criminal trials are expected to proceed during the legal vacation, even as the Supreme Court continues to consider the substantive constitutional challenge brought by Mr Oppong Nkrumah.