The Supreme Court will on Friday, August 21, rule on an application by Ofoase-Ayirebi MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah seeking to suspend the conduct of certain High Court trials during the ongoing legal vacation.
The application, which was heard by Justice Gabriel Pwamang sitting as a single judge, seeks an interlocutory injunction against the operation of a warrant issued by the Chief Justice allowing High Court judges to conduct trials during the vacation period.
Lawyers for the applicant and the respondents concluded their arguments on Thursday, August 20, paving the way for the court to deliver its ruling.
The legal vacation runs from August 1 to September 30, 2026.
Mr Oppong Nkrumah, represented by Frank Davies, is challenging the validity of the Chief Justice’s warrant in a substantive constitutional case and wants its operation suspended until that case is determined.
His lawyers contend that the warrant goes beyond the Chief Justice’s administrative discretion and conflicts with constitutional requirements governing the exercise of discretionary powers under Article 296 of the Constitution.
They argued that allowing trials to proceed during the vacation could prejudice accused persons, particularly where their lawyers are unavailable and applications for adjournments are refused.
Mr Davies told the court that forcing accused persons to participate in trials without legal representation could result in harm that could not be adequately remedied through financial compensation.
He further argued that the balance of convenience favoured suspending the warrant, saying continued proceedings could undermine the effectiveness of the substantive constitutional case if the warrant was eventually declared unconstitutional.
The State, however, opposed the application.
Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, argued that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had failed to meet the legal requirements for the grant of an interlocutory injunction.
He said the court must be satisfied that there was a serious question to be tried, that refusal of the injunction could cause irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.
Dr Srem-Sai also maintained that the application wrongly conflated the Chief Justice’s administrative authority with the judicial discretion exercised by individual High Court judges.
According to him, the warrant does not dictate how judges should conduct trials, determine when cases should be adjourned or decide which matters should be heard.
Those, he argued, remain matters for the individual judges exercising their judicial functions.
The Deputy Attorney-General further contended that if Mr Oppong Nkrumah’s complaint concerned specific decisions by trial judges, the appropriate legal avenue would be judicial review, including certiorari where applicable, rather than invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
He also disputed the claim that there is a binding rule prohibiting trials during the legal vacation.
On the issue of irreparable harm, Dr Srem-Sai argued that the applicant had not demonstrated any specific injury he personally stood to suffer if the trials continued.
The State therefore urged the court to reject the injunction, arguing that no exceptional circumstances had been established and that the public interest weighed against interfering with the ongoing conduct of trials.
Justice Pwamang subsequently adjourned the case to Friday, August 21, when the court is expected to rule on the application.
