Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, Member of Parliament for Ofoase Ayirebi. is set to seek a review of the Supreme Court’s decision after the apex court rejected his application for an injunction to halt proceedings in a case involving trials during the legal vacation.
The decision clears the way for the proceedings to continue despite the legal challenge mounted by the Ofoase Ayirebi MP.
Oppong Nkrumah had asked the Supreme Court to restrain the lower court from proceeding with the trial during the legal vacation, arguing that the circumstances surrounding the hearing warranted the court’s intervention.
However, the Supreme Court declined to grant the injunction, leaving the existing proceedings unaffected.
Justice Gabriel Pwamang of the Supreme Court, sitting as a single judge, has dismissed an application for an interlocutory injunction filed by Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, Member of Parliament, seeking to halt the hearing of criminal cases in specialised High Courts during the legal vacation.
The application arose from a writ filed on 14 August 2026 challenging warrants issued by the Chief Justice authorising certain judges of specialised courts to sit during the legal vacation.
The plaintiff sought declarations that the warrants were unconstitutional, amounting to selective justice, violating equality before the law (Article 17), administrative justice and discretionary power requirements (Articles 23 and 296), and the right to satisfactory working conditions and health (Articles 24 and 36(10)).
He also challenged Order 79 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47).
In support of the injunction, the applicant argued that allowing the trials to proceed would cause irreversible harm if the warrants were later declared unconstitutional, and that the balance of convenience favoured suspension of the sittings.
The Attorney-General opposed the application, disputing the claim that the warrants targeted only “selected cases.”
The warrants, it was argued, authorised hearings in all cases pending before the relevant courts. The Attorney-General further contended that the suit was frivolous and that the plaintiff stood to suffer no personal inconvenience.
Justice Pwamang first addressed a preliminary objection concerning the Attorney-General’s representation of the Chief Justice. Relying on Tastsu Tsikata v Chief Justice [2001-2002] SCGLR 437, he held that the Attorney-General is the proper party to defend official acts of the Chief Justice under Article 88(5) of the Constitution.
Following the ruling, Oppong Nkrumah indicated that he would pursue a review of the decision, signalling that the legal dispute is not yet over.
He is, therefore, expected to return to the apex court with his application for review as he continues his legal efforts over the matter.
Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, speaking to the media, said: “The court has dismissed our injunction application, but in the ruling some very interesting pronouncements have been made.
“For the first time, the courts have admitted that some cases have been treated differently. Those are the words of the judge. They have been treated differently and expeditiously. Why? He doesn’t say so.”
He added that “But then he proceeds to say that, in his opinion, that will not amount to a violation of the constitutional articles that we have raised in this particular matter and that he thinks that that will even be in the interest of the accused persons.”
The MP said his legal team had requested a certified copy of the ruling to enable them to examine the court’s reasoning before deciding on the next legal steps.
“We’ve asked for a certified copy so that we can peruse it some more and then on the advice of counsel we’ll take the next steps,” he said.
Asked whether he would seek a review of the decision, Oppong Nkrumah responded: “Very much so, very much so, but we’ll consider it.”
The issue of proceedings during the legal vacation has attracted attention because of the implications it could have for the conduct of cases before the courts during periods when the judiciary is officially on recess.
The latest ruling, however, means that the trial can proceed unless a subsequent application or decision alters the current position.
