BY Daniel Bampoe
The Supreme Court has rejected an application by Ofoase-Ayirebi Member of Parliament Kojo Oppong Nkrumah seeking to temporarily halt selected criminal trials being conducted during the ongoing legal vacation.
Justice Gabriel Pwamang, sitting as a single judge of the Supreme Court, dismissed the application for an interlocutory injunction on Friday, August 21, 2026, clearing the immediate path for the affected criminal proceedings to continue.
The decision, however, does not bring the legal battle to an end.
The substantive constitutional action filed by Mr Oppong Nkrumah challenging the validity of the Chief Justice’s directives remains before the Supreme Court and is yet to be determined.
The legal dispute emerged from administrative warrants issued by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie directing selected High Court judges to sit and conduct certain criminal trials during the legal vacation, which runs from August 1 to September 30.
Mr Oppong Nkrumah, who is also a lawyer, subsequently went to the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional basis of the arrangement.
He argued that the decision to select certain criminal cases for hearing during the vacation raised questions of equality before the law, selective justice and the exercise of discretionary powers under the 1992 Constitution.
His substantive case relies, among other provisions, on Articles 17 and 296 of the Constitution.
He contends that the Chief Justice’s directive is inconsistent with constitutional safeguards and ought to be declared unconstitutional.
Before the substantive case could be determined, however, the MP sought an interlocutory injunction to suspend the operation of the warrants.
His argument was essentially that allowing the trials to continue while the constitutional challenge was pending could undermine the effectiveness of any eventual judgment in his favour.
The State opposed the injunction, arguing that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had failed to meet the requirements for such an exceptional order.
The State also maintained that the warrant issued by the Chief Justice did not determine how individual judges should conduct proceedings, since matters such as adjournments and the conduct of trials remain within the judicial discretion of the respective judges.
Among the proceedings affected by the controversy are the criminal trial involving former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his wife, as well as proceedings involving former National Food Buffer Stock Company Chief Executive Officer Hanan Abdul-Wahab.
The ruling therefore allows such proceedings to proceed under the existing administrative arrangements while the larger constitutional challenge remains unresolved.
Reacting to the decision after the court proceedings, counsel for Mr Oppong Nkrumah, Frank Davies, adopted a measured position, stressing that lawyers were expected to respect judicial decisions even when those decisions went against their clients.
Mr Davies said the legal team would not condemn the judge for dismissing the injunction application, explaining that lawyers could only critique a judicial decision through appropriate legal and professional channels.
He indicated that the lawyers had applied for a certified true copy of the ruling from the court registrar and would carefully study the court’s reasoning before advising their client on the next step.
According to Mr Davies, the legal team accepted the ruling for the time being and would abide by it while awaiting the detailed written decision.
The distinction between Friday’s ruling and the substantive constitutional case is significant.
The dismissal of the injunction does not amount to a declaration that the Chief Justice’s warrants are constitutional. Rather, it means that Mr Oppong Nkrumah failed at this stage to secure an interim order suspending their operation pending determination of the main case.
The Supreme Court will therefore still have to confront the larger constitutional questions raised by the MP.
At the centre of that substantive dispute is the extent to which the Chief Justice can exercise administrative authority to direct selected judges to sit during a period traditionally designated as legal vacation, and whether the selection of particular criminal cases for hearing creates constitutional concerns.
The case has consequently developed beyond a dispute over the scheduling of court proceedings. It now places questions about judicial administration, constitutional discretion, equality before the law, the rights of accused persons and the proper limits of administrative authority before the Supreme Court.
