The Supreme Court has dismissed an interlocutory injunction application filed by Ofoase-Ayirebi MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, effectively clearing the way for selected criminal trials to continue during Ghana’s legal vacation.
The ruling means selected High Court judges can continue hearing criminal cases under administrative warrants issued by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie during the legal vacation.
However, the Supreme Court’s decision does not settle the substantive constitutional challenge brought by Mr Oppong Nkrumah. That case remains pending before the apex court.
Also read: Two Bolgatanga Girls SHS security men arrested for alleged defilement of 14-year-old student
Justice Gabriel Pwamang, sitting as a single judge of the Supreme Court, ruled on Friday, August 21, 2026, that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had failed to establish a proper case for the injunction on criminal trials during the legal vacation.
Mr Oppong Nkrumah filed the substantive suit to challenge the constitutionality of warrants issued by the Chief Justice directing selected High Court judges to continue sitting on criminal matters during the legal vacation.
The legal vacation runs from August 1 to September 30.
The MP argues that the administrative directives violate provisions of the 1992 Constitution, including Articles 17 and 296. He contends that selecting particular courts to continue sitting could amount to discriminatory or selective justice.
He subsequently applied for an interlocutory injunction seeking to suspend the warrants until the Supreme Court determines the substantive constitutional case.
Justice Pwamang, however, dismissed the injunction application, allowing the affected proceedings to continue.
Among the cases that can proceed during the legal vacation are the trials involving former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his wife, as well as former National Food Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO) Chief Executive Officer Hanan Abdul-Wahab.
Other selected criminal proceedings are also covered by the administrative arrangement.
The ruling removes the immediate legal obstacle to the continuation of those proceedings while the broader constitutional dispute remains before the Supreme Court.
Speaking after the ruling, counsel for Mr Oppong Nkrumah, Frank Davies, said the legal team accepted the decision and would study the court’s full reasoning before advising their client.
“When you come to court, you come to court with an anticipatory mind. When you have an injunction application, whatever application you have before the court will either be refused or will be granted. So yes, the judge has decided,” he said.
Mr Davies said lawyers are not expected to condemn judges simply because a ruling went against their clients.
“It is not in our place as lawyers to condemn the judge. We can only critique,” he stated.
He added that the legal team would comply with the ruling while awaiting the written decision.
According to the lawyer, the legal team has also applied to the court registrar for a certified true copy of the ruling.
He said the lawyers would carefully examine the written decision before determining the next legal steps and advising their client.
Although the injunction has been dismissed, the central constitutional question raised by Mr Oppong Nkrumah has not yet been determined.
The Supreme Court will still have to rule on whether the Chief Justice had the constitutional authority to issue administrative warrants directing selected High Court judges to hear criminal cases during the legal vacation.
For now, however, the dismissal of the injunction means the selected criminal trials can proceed during the legal vacation pending the Supreme Court’s final determination of the constitutional challenge.