Adoa News Adoa News
The Supreme Court has set Friday, August 21, 2026, to rule on an application by Ofoase Ayirebi Member of Parliament, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, seeking to suspend the conduct of certain High Court trials during the legal vacation.
Justice Gabriel Pwamang, sitting as a single judge, adjourned the case after lawyers for Mr Oppong Nkrumah and the respondents concluded their arguments on Thursday, August 20.
Mr Oppong Nkrumah, represented by lawyer Frank Davies, is seeking an interlocutory injunction to suspend the operation of a warrant issued by the Chief Justice pending the determination of a substantive constitutional case challenging its validity.
The warrant allows High Court judges to continue conducting trials during the legal vacation, which runs from August 1 to September 30, 2026.
Oppong Nkrumah’s case
Mr Oppong Nkrumah argues that the Chief Justice exceeded the proper limits of administrative discretion by issuing the warrant.
His lawyers contend that courts traditionally focus during the legal vacation on urgent and non-contentious matters and that the exercise of the Chief Justice’s discretion must comply with Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution, which governs the exercise of discretionary powers by public authorities.
Arguing the interlocutory application, Mr Davies said allowing the trials to proceed while the constitutional challenge remained pending could result in harm that could not be adequately remedied through financial compensation.
He cited instances where lawyers representing accused persons could be unavailable during the legal vacation, arguing that some trial judges had nevertheless declined requests for adjournments because of the warrant.
Mr Davies further argued that accused persons’ rights could be undermined if they were compelled to participate in trials without legal representation.
He maintained that the balance of convenience favoured suspending the trials, arguing that if the warrant was eventually declared unconstitutional, allowing proceedings to continue could undermine the effectiveness of the substantive relief being sought.
State opposes injunction
Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, opposed the application, arguing that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had failed to meet the legal requirements for an interlocutory injunction.
He said the court must determine whether there was a serious question to be tried, whether refusing the injunction could result in irreparable damage and where the balance of convenience lay.
On the substantive constitutional challenge, Dr Srem-Sai argued that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had conflated the Chief Justice’s administrative authority to issue the warrant with the judicial functions of individual High Court judges.
According to him, the warrant does not dictate how an individual judge should conduct a trial, determine when a case should be adjourned or specify which matters should be heard, as those decisions fall within the judicial functions of individual judges.
Dr Srem-Sai further argued that if Mr Oppong Nkrumah’s concerns relate to decisions made by individual 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 an established rule preventing High Court trials from being conducted 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 would suffer if the trials were allowed to continue.
The State therefore maintained that no exceptional circumstances had been established to warrant the injunction and argued that the public interest favoured allowing the trials to proceed.
The Supreme Court is expected to deliver its ruling on the interlocutory application on Friday, August 21.