Supreme Court to rule on bid to halt High Court trials during legal vacation on August 21

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

Justice Gabriel Pwamang, sitting as a single judge, adjourned the case after lawyers for Mr Oppong Nkrumah and the respondents concluded 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 until the Supreme Court determines a substantive constitutional challenge to its validity.

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

Mr Oppong Nkrumah's lawyers argue that the Chief Justice exceeded the scope of his administrative discretion by issuing the warrant. They contend that courts traditionally use the legal vacation primarily to deal with urgent and non-contentious matters.

They further argued that any exercise of discretionary power by the Chief Justice must comply with Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution, which governs the exercise of discretionary powers by public authorities.

In support of the injunction application, Mr Davies told the court that allowing the trials to proceed while the constitutional case remained pending could cause harm that could not adequately be remedied through financial compensation.

He cited situations in which lawyers representing accused persons could be unavailable during the legal vacation, arguing that some trial judges had nevertheless refused requests for adjournments because of the warrant.

According to him, continuing trials in such circumstances could undermine the rights of accused persons who may be required to participate in proceedings without their lawyers.

Mr Davies also argued that the balance of convenience favoured suspending the trials. He said if the warrant were eventually declared unconstitutional, proceedings conducted under it could undermine the effectiveness of the relief being sought in the substantive case.

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

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

On the substantive constitutional challenge, Dr Srem-Sai argued that the applicant had conflated the Chief Justice's administrative authority to issue the warrant with the judicial functions exercised by individual High Court judges.

He maintained that the warrant did not dictate how individual judges should conduct trials, when cases should be adjourned or which matters should be heard, as those decisions remained within the judicial discretion of the respective judges.

The Deputy Attorney-General further argued that if Mr Oppong Nkrumah's complaint concerned decisions taken by individual trial judges, the appropriate legal remedy would be judicial review, including certiorari where applicable, rather than an action invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

He also rejected the claim that there was an established rule prohibiting High Court trials during the legal vacation.

On the issue of irreparable harm, Dr Srem-Sai argued that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had not demonstrated any personal injury he would suffer if the trials continued.

The State maintained that no exceptional circumstances had been established to warrant an injunction and that the public interest weighed against interfering with the ongoing work of the High Court.

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