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 an administrative warrant issued by the Chief Justice pending the determination of his substantive constitutional case challenging its validity.
The warrant permits selected High Court judges to continue conducting trials during the legal vacation, which runs from August 1 to September 30, 2026.
Mr Oppong Nkrumah’s case is that the Chief Justice’s warrant exceeds the proper exercise of administrative discretion and permits trials to continue during a period when, according to his lawyers, courts traditionally deal mainly with urgent and non-contentious matters.
His lawyers argued that the Chief Justice’s exercise of discretionary power must comply with Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution.
Arguing the interlocutory application, Mr Davies said allowing the trials to continue while the constitutional challenge was pending could cause harm that could not adequately be remedied through monetary compensation.
He cited instances where lawyers representing accused persons might 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 the rights of accused persons could be compromised if they were required to participate in trials without their lawyers.
He said the balance of convenience favoured suspending the trials because if the warrant was ultimately found to be unconstitutional, allowing proceedings to continue could render the substantive relief sought ineffective.
The Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, opposed the application, arguing that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had failed to meet the requirements for an interlocutory injunction.
He said the court had to 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 role in issuing the warrant with the judicial functions of individual High Court judges.
He said the warrant did not determine how a particular judge should conduct a trial, when a case should be adjourned or which matters should be heard, as those were judicial decisions for individual judges.
Dr Srem-Sai further argued that if Mr Oppong Nkrumah was challenging decisions made by individual trial judges, the appropriate remedy would be judicial review, including certiorari where applicable, rather than an action invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
He also rejected the claim that there was an established rule preventing trials from being conducted during the legal vacation.
On the question of irreparable harm, Dr Srem-Sai argued that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had not demonstrated any injury he personally would suffer if the trials continued.
The State maintained that no exceptional circumstances had been established to justify the injunction and that the public interest weighed against interfering with the conduct of the trials.
Justice Pwamang subsequently adjourned the case to Friday, August 21, when he is expected to deliver his ruling.
