The Supreme Court has dismissed an application by Ofoase-Ayirebi Member of Parliament, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, seeking to prevent selected criminal cases from being heard during the ongoing legal vacation.

Justice Gabriel Pwamang, sitting as a single justice of the Supreme Court, dismissed the interlocutory injunction application on Friday, August 21, 2026.

The decision allows the affected criminal proceedings to continue while the court considers the substantive suit challenging the constitutionality of administrative warrants issued by the Chief Justice.

Mr Oppong Nkrumah initiated the substantive action at the Supreme Court to challenge directives issued by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie authorising selected High Court judges to sit during the legal vacation and continue hearing specified criminal matters.

The legal vacation runs from August 1 to September 30.

The Ofoase-Ayirebi MP argues that the arrangement contravenes Articles 17(1), (2) and 296(a) and (b) of the 1992 Constitution because it allegedly singles out particular criminal cases for continuation while other matters remain suspended.

He has described the practice as a form of selective justice.

As part of his legal challenge, Mr Oppong Nkrumah sought an interlocutory injunction to temporarily suspend the Chief Justice’s administrative warrants until the Supreme Court determines the substantive case.

At Thursday’s hearing, his lawyer, Frank Davies, argued that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue could negatively affect the rights of accused persons.

He particularly raised concerns over situations where judges may proceed with hearings despite the absence of defence counsel, arguing that this could effectively force accused persons to defend themselves.

“The harm which will be occasioned to the accused is not something that can be quantified by way of monetary compensation. It is something that affects the rights and liberties of the accused persons, and monetary awards cannot compensate for that,” Mr Davies submitted.

However, the Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, urged the court to reject the injunction application.

He argued that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had not met the legal requirements necessary for the grant of an interlocutory injunction.

According to him, the court had to consider whether the applicant had demonstrated a serious issue to be tried, whether refusing the injunction would result in irreparable harm and where the balance of convenience lay.

Dr Srem-Sai further argued that the application improperly merged the Chief Justice’s administrative authority with the judicial discretion exercised by individual High Court judges.

He maintained that if a party was dissatisfied with a High Court judge’s decision to proceed with a case, the appropriate legal avenue would be to seek an order of certiorari rather than invoke the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction in the manner adopted by the applicant.

There was also a preliminary dispute over the representation of the defendants.

Before the substantive arguments on the injunction, Mr Davies objected to the Deputy Attorney-General representing both the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General.

He argued that because the Chief Justice was the subject of a challenge over an administrative decision, he should have independent legal representation.

Justice Pwamang dismissed that objection on Thursday.

The judge held that the Chief Justice had been properly served with the relevant court processes and had indicated how he wished to be represented.

Justice Pwamang further stated that the Attorney-General’s decision to authorise legal representation for the Chief Justice did not affect the Attorney-General’s own status as a defendant in the case.

He indicated that the detailed reasons for dismissing the objection would be included in his ruling on the injunction application.

With the injunction now dismissed, the selected criminal cases covered by the Chief Justice’s administrative warrants can proceed during the legal vacation, subject to the outcome of the substantive constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court.