The Supreme Court has dismissed a review application filed by the Member of Parliament for Ofoase Ayeribi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, challenging an earlier decision that refused an injunction against warrants authorising High Court judges to sit during the legal vacation to hear selected criminal cases.
A three-member panel of the Supreme Court, presided over by Justice Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi, unanimously dismissed the application on Wednesday, September 2, 2026.
The Court held that the application had failed to meet the strict threshold required for the exercise of its limited review jurisdiction.
Also read: Bawumia ‘owns’ Domestic Gold Purchase initiative – Abu Jinapor demands record be set straight
Justice Kulendi, delivering the decision, said the Court had carefully considered the processes before it, including affidavits, legal arguments and oral submissions from counsel for both sides.
“Our unanimous decision is that the application failed at the threshold on all grounds and as such ought to be dismissed as unmeritorious,” the Court held.
The full reasons for the decision are expected to be available at the Supreme Court Registry on September 7, 2026.
Challenge
The review application arose from a substantive suit filed by Mr Oppong Nkrumah challenging the constitutionality and legality of warrants issued to High Court judges to enable them to hear criminal trials during the legal vacation.
The warrants concern criminal proceedings involving former National Signals Bureau boss Kwabena Adu Boahen and former National Food Buffer Stock Company CEO Abdul Hanan Wahab.
Mr Oppong Nkrumah had sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the implementation of the warrants pending the determination of his substantive constitutional challenge.
However, Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, sitting as a single Justice of the Supreme Court, dismissed the injunction application.
The Ofoase Ayeribi MP subsequently invoked the Supreme Court’s review jurisdiction, asking a full panel to overturn that decision.
Represented by lawyer Frank Davies, Mr Oppong Nkrumah argued that there were patent errors on the face of the single Justice’s ruling that warranted the intervention of the full Court.
A key issue raised by the applicant was the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings during the legal vacation.
Mr Davies argued that if criminal trials could be conducted during the legal vacation without a warrant, there would be no need for the warrants being challenged.
He contended that the single Justice’s position that the legal-vacation provisions applied to civil proceedings but not criminal trials amounted to an error apparent on the face of the ruling.
The applicant also argued that the single Justice had exceeded the proper scope of an interlocutory application by making findings that touched on the merits of the substantive constitutional case.
Counsel further challenged the approach taken to the test for granting an interlocutory injunction in a matter involving public interest.
According to the applicant, the relevant consideration should have been whether there was a serious question of law to be tried, rather than whether the applicant had demonstrated strong prospects of success.
The Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the review application.
He argued that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had failed to establish any exceptional circumstances that would justify the exercise of the Court’s review jurisdiction.
According to him, the review process could not be used as an appeal or as an opportunity to re-argue matters already considered by the single Justice.
He maintained that none of the eight grounds relied upon by the applicant met the threshold required for a review.
After considering the arguments presented by both sides, the three-member panel unanimously dismissed the application.
The substantive constitutional challenge to the legality and constitutionality of the warrants remains separate from Wednesday’s review decision.