BY Daniel Bampoe
Member of Parliament for Ofoase-Ayirebi, Kojo Oppong-Nkrumah, has reaffirmed his opposition to what he describes as the selective treatment of criminal cases during the legal vacation, following the Supreme Court’s dismissal of his application seeking to halt full trials at the High Court.
Mr Oppong-Nkrumah, in a statement following the ruling, said the Supreme Court had earlier on Friday dismissed his interlocutory injunction application, which sought an order suspending the conduct of full trials during the legal vacation pending the determination of his substantive constitutional case.
The application formed part of a broader legal challenge mounted by the legislator against the administrative arrangements allowing selected High Court judges to continue hearing certain criminal cases during the vacation period.
According to Mr Oppong-Nkrumah, his application was intended to prevent the continuation of the full trials while the Supreme Court considers the substantive constitutional questions raised in his writ.
The legal vacation traditionally provides a period during which the regular operations of the superior courts are scaled down, although certain matters may continue to be heard under established arrangements and directions issued by the Chief Justice.
The current dispute, however, centres on whether selected criminal trials can be conducted during the vacation and whether the manner in which some cases have been prioritised is consistent with constitutional guarantees.
In his reaction to Friday’s decision, Mr Oppong-Nkrumah said Justice Gabriel Pwamang, who sat as a single Justice of the Supreme Court, acknowledged that some cases were indeed being treated differently and expedited, but concluded that such differential treatment did not, in itself, amount to a violation of the constitutional rights to equality before the law or fair trial.
“Earlier this morning the Supreme Court dismissed my Injunction application,” Mr Oppong-Nkrumah stated, explaining that the application had asked the apex court to order a halt to full trials at the High Courts while the substantive constitutional challenge was pending.
The Ofoase-Ayirebi MP, however, stressed that the dismissal of the injunction did not bring the broader constitutional dispute to an end.
He indicated that his legal team had requested a certified true copy of the ruling and would carefully study the court’s reasoning before determining the appropriate next steps.
“We’ve asked for a certified copy of the ruling to study and take advice,” he said.
The substantive case remains pending before the Supreme Court, and according to Mr Oppong-Nkrumah, no date has yet been fixed for its hearing.
His substantive action challenges the constitutionality of the arrangements under which selected High Court judges have been directed to conduct criminal trials during the legal vacation.
The case raises questions concerning equality before the law, fair trial rights and the exercise of discretionary administrative powers within the constitutional framework.
The injunction application was therefore an interim step intended to preserve the situation until the Supreme Court could fully determine the constitutional issues raised in the substantive writ.
The rejection of the injunction means the selected criminal proceedings can continue while the substantive constitutional case remains before the apex court.
The Friday ruling, therefore, does not constitute a final determination of whether the Chief Justice’s directives themselves are constitutional.
Mr Oppong-Nkrumah also placed the case within the broader political position of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), saying the party remains committed to ensuring that justice is applied fairly and without discrimination.
“We in the NPP believe that justice must not be selective,” he declared.
He added that the party would continue to pursue avenues available to it to address what it considers selective application of the law.
The controversy has attracted attention because the affected proceedings include high-profile criminal cases involving former public officials.
Critics of the vacation arrangements have questioned why certain cases have been prioritised for continuation while other matters remain subject to the normal vacation schedule.
The government, however, has defended the legality of the arrangements, with the State arguing during the injunction hearing that the Chief Justice’s administrative role should be distinguished from the independent judicial decisions of individual High Court judges.
The State also argued that there is no absolute constitutional prohibition against criminal trials being conducted during the legal vacation and that the applicant had not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances necessary to justify an interlocutory injunction.
Mr Oppong-Nkrumah’s substantive case will now become the central focus of the legal dispute. Its eventual determination could have wider implications for the administration of the superior courts, the exercise of the Chief Justice’s administrative powers and the treatment of cases during legal vacation periods.
