The Supreme Court is set to rule on Friday, August 21, 2026, on an application by the Member of Parliament for Ofoase Ayeribi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, seeking to halt certain High Court trials during the ongoing legal vacation.
The ruling follows the conclusion of arguments by lawyers for Mr Oppong Nkrumah and the respondents before Justice Gabriel Pwamang, sitting as a single judge, on Thursday, August 20.
Mr Oppong Nkrumah, represented by lawyer Frank Davies, is asking the Supreme Court to grant an interlocutory injunction suspending the operation of a warrant issued by the Chief Justice.
The application forms part of a broader constitutional challenge in which the MP is questioning the validity of the warrant, which allows High Court judges to conduct trials during the legal vacation from August 1 to September 30, 2026.
Mr Davies argued that continuing the trials while the constitutional case is pending could undermine the rights of accused persons and make any eventual relief from the substantive case ineffective.
He maintained that the Chief Justice’s administrative discretion must be exercised in accordance with Article 296 of the Constitution.
According to the applicant’s lawyers, some lawyers representing accused persons may be unavailable during the legal vacation, yet certain trial judges have declined adjournment requests because of the warrant.
Mr Davies argued that forcing accused persons to proceed with trials without their lawyers could result in serious prejudice that could not adequately be remedied through financial compensation.
He therefore urged the court to suspend the warrant pending the determination of the substantive constitutional challenge, arguing that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.
The State, however, has urged the court to dismiss the application.
Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, argued that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had failed to meet the legal requirements for an interlocutory injunction.
He said the applicant had to establish, among other things, that there was a serious question to be tried, that refusal of the injunction could result in irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the application.
Dr Srem-Sai also challenged the basis of the constitutional case, arguing that the applicant had conflated the Chief Justice’s administrative functions with the judicial discretion exercised by individual High Court judges.
He maintained that the warrant did not dictate how individual judges should conduct trials, determine adjournments or decide which cases should be heard.
Those matters, he argued, remained within the judicial discretion of the individual judges.
The Deputy Attorney-General further contended that where Mr Oppong Nkrumah was challenging decisions taken by individual trial judges, the appropriate legal remedy would be judicial review rather than invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
He also disputed the claim that there was an established rule preventing High Court judges from conducting trials during the legal vacation.
On the question of irreparable harm, Dr Srem-Sai argued that the MP had not demonstrated any personal injury he would suffer if the trials continued.
The State therefore maintained that no exceptional circumstances had been presented to justify interfering with the warrant and that the public interest favoured allowing the courts to continue their work.
Justice Pwamang subsequently adjourned the matter to Friday, August 21, when he is expected to deliver his ruling on the interlocutory application.
