The High Court has suspended further proceedings in the trial of former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng, pending the Supreme Court’s determination of an application seeking to stop the case from continuing during the legal vacation.
The trial, which was expected to proceed before the vacation court, has been adjourned to August 25, 2026, after the High Court ruled that it could not continue while the injunction application remained pending before the country’s apex court.
The application was filed by Ofoase/Ayirebi Member of Parliament, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, and is scheduled for hearing on August 20, 2026.
The development followed a request by defence counsel, Peter Osei-Asamoah, who was holding brief for lead counsel Samuel Atta Akyea, for the case to be adjourned until the next legal term.
Mr Osei-Asamoah told the court that Mr Atta Akyea had prior professional commitments during the legal vacation, making it difficult for him to attend the proceedings and undertake cross-examination.
He argued that postponing the trial was necessary to guarantee the accused persons effective legal representation as required under the Constitution.
The defence also drew the court’s attention to the separate application before the Supreme Court seeking to restrain the High Court from conducting the trial during the vacation.
The Deputy Attorney General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, opposed the request, arguing that the filing of an injunction application did not, by itself, strip the High Court of its jurisdiction.
He maintained that proceedings could only be halted if the Supreme Court had issued an order restraining the High Court.
According to the prosecution, allowing parties to stop proceedings merely by filing an injunction application would undermine judicial procedure and could unnecessarily delay cases.
Dr Srem-Sai further submitted that challenges concerning the validity or propriety of proceedings before a lower court are ordinarily addressed through judicial review mechanisms such as certiorari or prohibition, which do not automatically suspend proceedings.
The defence disagreed, insisting that it was not claiming that the High Court had already been restrained by the Supreme Court.
Rather, Mr Osei-Asamoah said the defence was asking the High Court to exercise caution and wait for the Supreme Court to determine an application that directly sought to prevent the trial from continuing during the vacation.
Court adopts cautious approach
In its ruling, the High Court rejected the defence’s request to postpone the case solely because of Mr Atta Akyea’s professional commitments.
The judge noted that granting that request would effectively push the case into October and undermine the purpose of the vacation court.
The court also observed that Mr Atta Akyea practises with other lawyers who could potentially represent the accused persons if he was unavailable.
However, the judge took a different approach regarding the pending Supreme Court application.
The court acknowledged that there are differing positions in Ghanaian jurisprudence on whether the mere filing of an injunction application should affect proceedings before a lower court.
One position holds that the filing of an application does not stop proceedings and that an actual injunction order is required before a court is prevented from continuing.
The other position requires a lower court to await the determination of a pending application before a superior court where that application specifically seeks to restrain the lower court from taking a particular action.
The judge adopted the latter approach.
He distinguished the Supreme Court application from an ordinary application seeking a stay of proceedings arising from a decision of the trial court, noting that the application before the Supreme Court directly seeks to restrain the High Court from conducting proceedings during the legal vacation.
The judge consequently ruled that the High Court would not proceed with the trial until the Supreme Court determines the pending injunction application.
The case has been adjourned to August 25, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., by which time the Supreme Court is expected to have ruled on the application.
