BY DANIEL BAMPOE
The Supreme Court is set to rule on Friday, August 21, 2026, on an application filed by the Member of Parliament for Ofoase-Ayirebi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, seeking to suspend the conduct of certain criminal trials during Ghana’s legal vacation.
The case, which raises questions about the extent of the Chief Justice’s administrative powers and the rights of accused persons during the legal vacation, came before Justice Gabriel Pwamang, sitting as a single judge, on Thursday, August 20. The hearing followed arguments from lawyers representing both Oppong Nkrumah and the State.
Oppong Nkrumah, represented by Frank Davies, is seeking an interlocutory injunction to suspend the operation of a warrant issued by the Chief Justice pending the determination of his substantive constitutional challenge.
The warrant permits selected High Court judges to continue hearing criminal trials during the legal vacation, which runs from August 1 to September 30, 2026. The MP’s challenge seeks to question whether the directive, particularly its application to selected criminal cases, is consistent with the Constitution.
At the heart of the dispute is the traditional operation of the legal vacation, during which courts generally deal with urgent and non-contentious matters rather than conducting ordinary trials. Oppong Nkrumah’s lawyers argue that the decision to allow selected criminal trials to proceed raises serious constitutional and administrative concerns.
The applicant contends that the Chief Justice’s authority to exercise administrative discretion is not unlimited and must be exercised within the boundaries established by the 1992 Constitution. His lawyers specifically relied on Article 296, which regulates the exercise of discretionary power by public authorities.
According to the arguments presented in court, allowing the affected trials to continue while the substantive constitutional case remains pending could create consequences that might not subsequently be capable of being adequately remedied.
Davies argued that the legal vacation creates practical difficulties for lawyers, particularly those who may not be available to represent accused persons during the period. He cited instances where lawyers had sought adjournments, but some trial judges allegedly declined such requests because of the warrant permitting proceedings to continue.
The applicant’s legal team further raised concerns about the rights of accused persons who may be required to participate in criminal proceedings without their lawyers being available.
The argument is that if the warrant is eventually declared unconstitutional but the affected trials are allowed to proceed in the meantime, the substantive case could effectively lose its practical value. On that basis, Frank Davies maintained that the balance of convenience favoured temporarily suspending the trials.
The State, however, strongly opposed the application.
Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, argued that Oppong Nkrumah had failed to satisfy the legal requirements for the grant of an interlocutory injunction.
According to the State, the court must establish whether there is a serious question to be tried, whether refusing the injunction would result in irreparable damage and where the balance of convenience lies.
Dr Srem-Sai also challenged the applicant’s interpretation of the Chief Justice’s warrant, arguing that Oppong Nkrumah had conflated the Chief Justice’s administrative responsibilities with the independent judicial functions of individual High Court judges.
The Deputy Attorney-General argued that the warrant did not dictate to individual judges how they should conduct trials, when a particular case should be adjourned or which specific matters should be heard. Those, he maintained, remain judicial decisions for the individual judges handling the cases.
The State further argued that if the applicant’s complaint concerns decisions made by individual trial judges, the appropriate legal remedy could be judicial review, including certiorari where applicable, rather than invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Another major point of disagreement was whether there is an established rule prohibiting criminal trials during the legal vacation.
Dr Srem-Sai rejected the suggestion that such a blanket prohibition exists, arguing that the applicant had not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances necessary to justify an injunction against the operation of the warrant.
The State also questioned the claim of irreparable harm, arguing that Oppong Nkrumah had not demonstrated what personal injury he would suffer if the trials were allowed to continue.
