High Court adjourns Adu-Boahene trial to August 25 over pending Supreme Court injunction application
The High Court has adjourned the trial of former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng, to August 25, 2026, pending the Supreme Court’s determination of an application seeking to prevent the High Court from continuing the proceedings during the legal vacation.
The case was expected to proceed before the vacation court, but the trial judge ruled that he could not continue with the proceedings while the application remained pending before the Supreme Court.
The application was filed by the Member of Parliament for Ofoase/Ayirebi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, and is scheduled for hearing on August 20, 2026.
At Monday’s proceedings, counsel for the accused persons, Peter Osei-Asamoah, who was holding brief for lead counsel Samuel Atta Akyea, initially asked the court to adjourn the case until the next legal term.
He explained that Mr Atta Akyea had prior professional commitments during the legal vacation, which would make it difficult for him to appear and conduct the cross-examination.
Mr Osei-Asamoah argued that the request was necessary to safeguard the accused persons’ constitutional right to adequate legal representation.
He also drew the court’s attention to the separate application before the Supreme Court seeking to restrain the High Court from proceeding with the trial during the vacation.
The Deputy Attorney General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, opposed the request, arguing that the mere filing of an injunction application did not deprive the High Court of its jurisdiction to continue with the case.
He maintained that proceedings could only be halted if the Supreme Court had actually issued an order restraining the High Court.
Dr Srem-Sai further argued that where a party challenges proceedings before a lower court, the appropriate legal avenues ordinarily include applications for judicial review, such as certiorari or prohibition, and that the filing of such applications does not automatically suspend proceedings.
Mr Osei-Asamoah, however, clarified that the defence was not claiming that the High Court had already been restrained by the Supreme Court.
Rather, he said, the defence was asking the trial court to wait for the Supreme Court’s determination because the application directly sought to prevent the High Court from continuing with the trial during the legal vacation.
In his ruling, the judge rejected the defence’s request to defer the case until the next legal term solely because of Mr Atta Akyea’s professional commitments.
He noted that such an adjournment would effectively move the case to October and undermine the purpose of his appointment as a vacation judge.
The judge also observed that Mr Atta Akyea practises in a law firm with other lawyers who could potentially represent the accused persons in his absence.
On the pending Supreme Court application, however, the judge took a different position from the prosecution.
He acknowledged that Ghanaian jurisprudence recognises two approaches to the effect of a pending injunction application. One position holds that the mere filing of an injunction does not stop proceedings and that an actual order is required before a court or party can be restrained.
The other position is that where a superior court is considering an application specifically seeking to restrain a lower court from taking a particular action, the lower court should wait for the superior court’s determination.
The judge adopted the latter position, holding that the application before the Supreme Court was specifically seeking to prevent the High Court from conducting proceedings during the legal vacation.
He distinguished the application from a request for a stay of proceedings arising from a decision already made by the trial court.
The judge consequently ruled that he could not continue with the trial while the injunction application remained pending before the Supreme Court.
The case has therefore been adjourned to August 25, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., by which time the Supreme Court is expected to have determined the application.