The Supreme Court has dismissed an application for interlocutory injunction filed by the Member of Parliament for Ofoase-Ayirebi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, seeking to restrain High Court judges from conducting trials during the legal vacation under a warrant issued by the Chief Justice.
Justice Gabriel Pwamang, sitting as a single judge, in his ruling on August 21, 2026, held that the applicant failed to establish a serious constitutional question to warrant the grant of an injunction.
The substantive case challenges the warrant issued by the Chief Justice authorizing High Courts to continue trials between August 1 and September 30, 2026.
The case titled, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah v Chief Justice and Attorney General, had Frank Davies representing the plaintiff/applicant, while Deputy Attorney General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai appeared for both respondents (CJ and AG).
Applicant’s argument
On Thursday, August 20, 2026, Lawyer Frank Davies had argued that the warrant contravenes the Constitution, particularly Articles 17 on discrimination and 296 on exercise of discretionary power.
He contended that the long-standing practice is that during legal vacation, only urgent and non-contentious matters are heard, and trials proceed only when lawyers and judges agree.
He argued that compelling accused persons to stand trial when their lawyers are on vacation violates their right to counsel under Article 19 and that any harm to their liberty cannot be compensated monetarily.
He urged the court to restrain the judges pending determination of the substantive suit, arguing that the suit would be rendered nugatory if trials continue.
AG’s Opposition
Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, opposed the application, arguing that there was no serious question to be tried. He said the applicant confused the administrative function of the Chief Justice to issue a warrant with the judicial function of a trial judge to decide how to manage his court.
He further argued that the applicant, not being an accused person, had not shown what irreparable damage he or the public would suffer if trials proceeded, and that the balance of convenience favoured expeditious disposal of criminal cases.
Court’s Ruling
Justice Pwamang held that although the court has jurisdiction to injunct the act of a public office, the applicant must first demonstrate that the substantive case has a high chance of success.
On Article 17 (Equality and non-discrimination) which the applicant hinges his case on, the judge said, “othing has been said which suggests that the CJ has directed that the law be applied differently to persons who appear before them.”
The Court said, the applicant admitted himself that the CJ has discretion to issue a warrant.
“I am unable to see how the directive of cases to be heard during the legal vacation is discriminatory,” Justice Pwamang said adding that “It is clear on the face of the warrant that the judges are supposed to conduct all cases pending in their court.”
“The plaintiff has not alleged that the CJ’s warrant was influenced by the colour, gender, religion of the accused persons at the High Court or their witnesses. For an action based on Article 17, it must cite the unlawful grounds stated in clause two,” he added.
The Court said it took judicial notice that Specialised Court 2 is handling cases including narcotics and galamsey, and that “It would be difficult to impeach the CJ’s exercise of discretion in accordance with Article 296 without any evidence.”
While distinguishing the welfare of judges and lawyers, Justice Pwamang noted that where judges work during the legal vacation, they take their leave when the legal year resumes, while lawyers as independent service providers can plan their leave at any time of the year.
“This ground of action fails to meet the test of serious constitutional consideration to result in the issuance of injunction,” Justice Pwamang ruled.
He further noted that C.I. 47 operates in civil cases while the instant case concerns criminal trials, and that there is no existing precedent to injunct the Chief Justice from issuing a warrant for courts to continue to hear cases during the legal vacation.
On the right to speedy trial, Justice Pwamang invoked Articles 19(1) and 14(4), saying “The framers of the Constitution considered speedy trial so fundamental that under Article 14(4) they provide that where there is unreasonable delay in the trial of a person in detention, they may be released either conditionally or unconditionally.”
He said, the warrants issued by the CJ are part of efforts to provide an opportunity for more criminal cases to be heard expeditiously.
“The fact that some criminal cases are not being heard during the legal vacation does not mean that the administration of justice would not be advanced to some extent,” he ruled.
“The fact that criminal trials do not usually take place during legal vacation ought not to be the ground for injuncting the Chief Justice’s effort at ensuring a speedy hearing of cases such as galamsey, narcotics,” he held.
Consequently, Justice Pwamang said, “I do not find it right to grant the application for injunction prayed for by the applicant. The application was accordingly dismissed.
What this means is that the Criminal trials including former National Signals Bureau, Kwabena Adu-Boahene and former National Food and Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO) will continue from August 25, 2026 the next adjourned date.
Source: www.kumasimail.com
