Member of Parliament for Ofoase-Ayirebi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, has returned to the Supreme Court seeking a review of a ruling that cleared the way for selected High Court judges to conduct criminal trials during the legal vacation.
The former Information Minister is challenging a decision by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, who on Friday, August 21, dismissed his application for an interlocutory injunction against the arrangement.
Mr Oppong Nkrumah wants the Supreme Court to reverse the decision as he continues his broader challenge to administrative warrants issued by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie.
The warrants permit selected High Court judges to sit and determine criminal cases during the annual legal vacation, which runs from August 1 to September 30.
Oppong Nkrumah’s challenge
Mr Oppong Nkrumah earlier invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to question the constitutionality of the Chief Justice’s decision.
His substantive case raises concerns about equality before the law and whether the Chief Justice has properly exercised his administrative powers in authorising criminal trials during the vacation.
As part of the case, he sought an interlocutory injunction to suspend the warrants until the Court determines the substantive constitutional questions.
Justice Pwamang, however, rejected the application, finding that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had not established a sufficiently strong case to justify the interim order.
The Court also dismissed the argument that the arrangement was discriminatory, pointing to the scope of the warrants issued to the affected judges.
“It is clear on the face of the warrant that the judges are supposed to conduct all cases pending in their courts,” the Court said.
Justice Pwamang further held that the fact that criminal trials are not ordinarily conducted during the legal vacation does not mean the administration of justice must come to a halt during the period.
Constitutional challenge continues
The rejection of the injunction does not resolve Mr Oppong Nkrumah’s main case against the vacation trial arrangement.
The substantive constitutional challenge remains before the Supreme Court for determination.
Mr Oppong Nkrumah has stressed that his objection is not against the trial of accused persons but rather the decision to conduct full criminal proceedings during the legal vacation under the current system.
His lawyer, Frank Davies, had previously argued that the arrangement could affect accused persons’ right to fair representation, particularly because lawyers may not always be available during the vacation period.
The dispute has subsequently sparked wider discussion about the purpose of the legal vacation and the Judiciary’s authority to use administrative measures to speed up the disposal of criminal cases.
The Chief Justice’s position, as reflected in the warrants and arguments presented by the respondents, is that the arrangement is designed to ensure the speedy determination of criminal matters.
Mr Oppong Nkrumah’s latest move therefore keeps the legal battle alive, with the Supreme Court now set to revisit the earlier ruling while the substantive constitutional issues remain pending.
