Deputy Attorney General Dr Justice Srem-Sai has criticised Ofoase-Ayirebi MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah and his legal team following the Supreme Court’s rejection of their application to suspend criminal proceedings scheduled during the legal vacation.
Dr Srem-Sai accused the applicants of building their injunction request around what he described as a “deliberate falsehood” concerning the Chief Justice’s directive on the hearing of criminal cases during the vacation period.
His comments came after the Supreme Court on Friday, August 21, 2026, dismissed Mr Oppong Nkrumah’s application for an interlocutory injunction seeking to halt the trials.
Justice Gabriel Pwamang, sitting as a single judge, ruled that the applicant had failed to demonstrate the existence of a serious constitutional question that justified the granting of the injunction.
Reacting to the decision in a Facebook post, Dr Srem-Sai said the legal challenge was premised on the claim that the Chief Justice had assigned selected criminal cases to only two judges for hearing during the legal vacation.
He argued that evidence presented by the applicants contradicted that claim.
According to the Deputy Attorney General, Exhibit D tendered in court showed that the directive issued by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie was general and was not restricted to particular cases or two judges.
He also cited Exhibit E, which he said established that 29 judges were sitting during the legal vacation, contrary to the assertion that only two judges had been assigned to hear cases.
“On court, however, their own evidence shows that their allegation was a deliberate falsehood,” Dr Srem-Sai stated.
He further argued that the legal challenge had nevertheless resulted in the courts being prevented from conducting proceedings for a week.
“The point, however, is that they have succeeded in preventing the courts from working for one week. Never underestimate the power of deliberate falsehood,” he said.
Mr Oppong Nkrumah had filed the substantive case at the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of administrative warrants issued by the Chief Justice directing selected High Court judges to hear criminal cases during the legal vacation.
The latest ruling, however, means the injunction sought by the MP to temporarily stop the vacation criminal trials has been dismissed, allowing the proceedings to continue while the substantive constitutional challenge remains before the court.
