Adoa News Adoa News
The High Court has adjourned the trial of former National Communications Authority (NCA) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng, to August 25, 2026.
The adjournment follows a pending application before the Supreme Court seeking to restrain the High Court from continuing with the trial during the legal vacation.
The case, which was scheduled to proceed before the vacation court, was adjourned after the trial judge ruled that he could not continue with the proceedings while the injunction application remained pending before the Supreme Court.
The application, filed by Ofoase/Ayirebi Member of Parliament Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, has a return date of August 20, 2026.
Defence seeks adjournment
Counsel for the accused persons, Peter Osei-Asamoah, who was holding brief for lead counsel Samuel Atta Akyea, had initially asked the court to adjourn the case to the next legal term.
He explained that Mr Atta Akyea had pre-arranged professional commitments during the legal vacation, making it difficult for him to attend the proceedings and conduct the cross-examination.
Mr Osei-Asamoah argued that the adjournment was necessary to ensure that the accused persons received adequate legal representation, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
He also drew the court’s attention to the separate application before the Supreme Court seeking to prevent the High Court from continuing the trial during the vacation.
Prosecution objects
The Deputy Attorney General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, opposed the request for an adjournment.
He argued that the mere filing of an injunction application did not deprive the High Court of its jurisdiction or prevent it from continuing with the trial unless the Supreme Court had issued an order restraining the proceedings.
According to him, allowing proceedings to be halted merely because a party had filed an application before a superior court would be inconsistent with justice and proper judicial procedure.
Dr Srem-Sai further argued that challenges to the validity or propriety of proceedings before a lower court are ordinarily pursued through judicial review mechanisms, including certiorari and prohibition.
He maintained that such applications do not automatically suspend proceedings unless the superior court issues an order to that effect.
Mr Osei-Asamoah, however, clarified that the defence was not claiming that the High Court had already been restrained by an injunction.
He said the defence was instead asking the court to await the Supreme Court’s determination because the application specifically sought to restrain the High Court from continuing the trial during the legal vacation.
He argued that, given that the Supreme Court was expected to hear the application on August 20, it was reasonable for the High Court to defer further proceedings.
Judge rejects request based on counsel’s schedule
In his ruling, the High Court judge rejected the defence’s request to adjourn the case to the next legal term on the basis of Mr Atta Akyea’s professional commitments.
The judge noted that such an adjournment would effectively push the trial to October and undermine the purpose for which he had been assigned as a vacation judge.
He also observed that Mr Atta Akyea practises in a law firm with other lawyers who could potentially represent the accused persons during his absence.
However, the judge took a different position regarding the pending injunction application before the Supreme Court.
Court awaits Supreme Court decision
The judge acknowledged that there are two approaches in Ghanaian jurisprudence concerning the effect of a pending injunction application on proceedings before a lower court.
One position holds that the mere filing of an injunction application does not halt proceedings and that only an actual injunction order can prevent a court or party from taking the action being challenged.
The other approach is that where an application is pending before a superior court specifically seeking to restrain a lower court from taking a particular action, the lower court should await the superior court’s determination.
The judge adopted the latter position.
He held that the application before the Supreme Court, which specifically seeks to restrain the High Court from conducting proceedings during the legal vacation, was distinct from an application for a stay of proceedings arising from a decision of the trial court.
He therefore ruled that the High Court could not continue with the trial while the injunction application remained pending before the Supreme Court.
The case has consequently been adjourned to August 25, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., by which time the Supreme Court is expected to have determined the injunction application.