Adoa News Adoa News
Deputy Attorney General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, has accused Ofoase-Ayirebi Member of Parliament, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, of misrepresenting the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case challenging the Chief Justice’s directives on the conduct of criminal trials during the legal vacation.
The Supreme Court on Friday, August 21, 2026, dismissed an interlocutory injunction application filed by Mr Oppong Nkrumah, seeking to suspend criminal proceedings being conducted by some High Court judges during the legal vacation.
Justice G. Pwamang, sitting as a single judge of the Supreme Court, ruled that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had failed to establish a serious constitutional question warranting the grant of an injunction against the Chief Justice.
In a Facebook post, Dr Srem-Sai said the application was based on what he described as a “deliberate falsehood” regarding the nature and scope of warrants issued by the Chief Justice.
He referred to the plaintiff’s first relief, which sought a declaration that the warrants directing some High Court judges to sit and conduct criminal trials in “selected cases” during the legal vacation were unconstitutional.
According to the Deputy Attorney General, the Attorney-General, in an affidavit opposing the injunction, denied that the Chief Justice had directed judges to select particular criminal cases for trial during August and September 2026.
Dr Srem-Sai also cited the court’s finding that it was “factually inaccurate” to suggest that the warrants required judges to conduct trials in “selected cases”.
He argued that the warrants instead authorised the judges to conduct hearings in all cases pending before their respective courts.
Oppong Nkrumah rejects allegation
Dr Srem-Sai’s comments followed a social media post by Mr Oppong Nkrumah, in which the former Works and Housing Minister criticised the Deputy Attorney General for accusing him of relying on deliberate falsehoods.
“It is disappointing that the Deputy AG is on social media misinforming the public that my plaint was based on ‘deliberate falsehoods’,” Mr Oppong Nkrumah said.
He argued that the court record did not support Dr Srem-Sai’s characterisation of his case.
“Where did the Judge find that it was based on ‘deliberate falsehoods’?” he asked, insisting that the record would instead show that the judge said the Deputy Attorney General had misunderstood the application.
Mr Oppong Nkrumah also defended his decision to approach the Supreme Court, arguing that any disruption to court sittings did not invalidate his constitutional right to seek an interpretation of the Constitution.
“If my application has resulted in the courts not sitting for one week, that does not transform the constitutional right to seek interpretation into a falsehood,” he said.
He stressed that the substantive constitutional case had not yet been heard and determined.
“The Deputy Attorney General cannot insist that courts must be respected and then attack litigants for invoking the powers of these very courts,” Mr Oppong Nkrumah said.
The dispute follows Mr Oppong Nkrumah’s constitutional challenge to the Chief Justice’s decision to authorise selected High Court judges to conduct criminal proceedings during the legal vacation, which runs from August 1 to September 30, 2026.
Although the interlocutory injunction has been dismissed, the substantive constitutional questions raised by the case remain separate from the application for interim relief.