Supreme Court Throws Out Oppong Nkrumah’s Bid to Halt ‘Vacation Trials’

The Supreme Court has dismissed an injunction application filed by Ofoase‑Ayeribi MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, who sought to halt proceedings in his constitutional challenge against warrants issued by the Chief Justice authorising selected High Court judges to hear criminal cases during the legal vacation.

Presided over by Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, the Court held that the MP failed to establish a sufficiently strong basis for restraining the Chief Justice from exercising his constitutional and administrative authority.

In its reasoning, the Court reaffirmed that the Attorney‑General is permitted to represent the Chief Justice in suits filed against him, citing the precedent in Republic v. Tsatsu Tsikata, where the Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice, as a public official, may be represented by the Attorney‑General. It therefore found nothing improper in the Attorney‑General announcing representation for the Chief Justice.

A key argument advanced by Oppong Nkrumah was that assigning criminal cases to judges during the legal vacation violated Article 17’s guarantee of equality and non‑discrimination. But the Court rejected the claim, stating that there was no evidence the Chief Justice had directed that the law be applied differently to any category of persons.

Justice Pwamang noted that the applicant himself acknowledged the Chief Justice’s discretion to issue warrants assigning judges to conduct cases.

“I am unable to see how the directive assigning cases to be heard during the legal vacation can be said to be discriminatory,” he ruled.

He added that the warrants clearly instructed judges to handle cases already pending before their courts, and there was no allegation that the Chief Justice’s decision was influenced by prohibited factors such as colour, gender, religion or ethnicity.

The Court emphasised that although criminal cases are not ordinarily heard during the legal vacation, nothing prevents the administration of justice from being advanced during that period, and the warrants formed part of efforts to ensure more criminal cases are heard and determined expeditiously.

Justice Pwamang, sitting as a single judge, accordingly dismissed the injunction application. The substantive constitutional challenge to the Chief Justice’s warrants will proceed separately.