The Supreme Court will on Friday, August 21, 2026, rule on an application by Ofoase Ayirebi Member of Parliament, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, seeking to suspend certain High Court trials during the ongoing legal vacation.

Justice Gabriel Pwamang, sitting as a single judge, adjourned the matter after lawyers for Mr Oppong Nkrumah and the respondents completed their arguments on Thursday, August 20.

Mr Oppong Nkrumah, represented by lawyer Frank Davies, is seeking an interlocutory injunction to suspend the operation of a warrant issued by the Chief Justice pending the determination of a substantive constitutional challenge to its validity.

The warrant allows High Court judges to continue conducting trials during the legal vacation, which runs from August 1 to September 30, 2026.

Mr Oppong Nkrumah argues that the warrant goes beyond the Chief Justice’s administrative discretion and permits trials to proceed during a period when courts traditionally focus on urgent and non-contentious matters.

His lawyers contend that the Chief Justice’s discretionary powers must be exercised in accordance with Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution, which governs the exercise of discretionary authority by public officials.

Applicant argues accused persons could be prejudiced

In support of the interlocutory application, Mr Davies argued that allowing the trials to proceed while the constitutional challenge is pending could cause harm that may not be adequately remedied later.

He cited instances where lawyers representing accused persons were unavailable during the legal vacation, but some trial judges reportedly declined requests for adjournments because of the warrant.

According to him, accused persons could have their rights compromised if they are compelled to participate in trials without legal representation.

He further argued that the balance of convenience favoured suspending the trials, saying continued proceedings could undermine the relief being sought if the warrant is eventually declared unconstitutional.

State opposes injunction

The Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, opposed the application, arguing that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had failed to meet the legal requirements for an interlocutory injunction.

He said the court must determine whether there is a serious question to be tried, whether refusing the injunction could result in irreparable harm and where the balance of convenience lies.

On the substantive constitutional challenge, Dr Srem-Sai argued that the applicant had wrongly conflated the Chief Justice’s administrative authority in issuing the warrant with the judicial functions of individual High Court judges.

He maintained that the warrant does not dictate how individual judges should conduct trials, determine when cases should be adjourned or decide which matters should be heard, as those are judicial decisions.

Dr Srem-Sai also argued that if Mr Oppong Nkrumah’s concerns relate to decisions taken by individual trial judges, the appropriate remedy would be judicial review, including certiorari where applicable, rather than an action invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

He further rejected the argument that there is an established rule prohibiting High Court trials during the legal vacation.

On the issue of irreparable harm, the Deputy Attorney-General argued that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had not demonstrated any personal injury he would suffer if the trials were allowed to continue.

The State maintained that no exceptional circumstances had been established to warrant the injunction and that the public interest favoured allowing the trials to proceed.

Justice Pwamang subsequently adjourned the matter to Friday, August 21, when he is expected to deliver his ruling.