By: Ebenezer Adugyamfi/ Emmanuel Ayiku for GhanaianNewsCanada
Publication Date: August 21, 2026
The Supreme Court of Ghana has dismissed an application by Ofoase-Ayirebi Member of Parliament and lawyer Kojo Oppong Nkrumah seeking to stop selected criminal trials from proceeding during the 2026 legal vacation.
The ruling, delivered on Friday, August 21, means the criminal proceedings covered by the Chief Justice’s directives can continue while the broader constitutional challenge brought by Mr Oppong Nkrumah remains before the apex court.
The application sought an interlocutory injunction against administrative warrants issued by the Chief Justice directing selected High Court judges to sit during the legal vacation to hear criminal cases.
The legal vacation runs from August 1 to September 30, 2026, but the Chief Justice has the administrative authority to designate judges to sit during that period for specified cases.
Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, sitting as a single Justice of the Supreme Court, ruled that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had not established a sufficient basis for the extraordinary interim order he was seeking.
What Oppong Nkrumah was challenging
Mr Oppong Nkrumah’s legal challenge centres on the constitutional limits of the Chief Justice’s discretion in administering the Judiciary.
His case questions whether the Chief Justice can, through administrative warrants, select particular High Court judges to conduct criminal trials during the legal vacation and whether the discretion involved in making those decisions was exercised in accordance with the 1992 Constitution.
A significant constitutional provision at the centre of the substantive challenge is Article 296, which regulates the exercise of discretionary powers by public officials and institutions.
The MP’s position, as outlined in the proceedings, is that although the Chief Justice possesses administrative powers over the Judiciary, those powers are not unlimited and must be exercised within constitutional boundaries.
The case also raises questions about how criminal cases are selected for hearing during the legal vacation and whether the administrative process used to make those selections complies with constitutional safeguards.
Supreme Court rejects injunction request
The immediate issue before Justice Pwamang, however, was not the final determination of those constitutional questions.
Instead, the court was asked to grant an interlocutory injunction — essentially an interim order designed to preserve the status quo until the substantive case could be fully determined.
Justice Pwamang concluded that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had failed to demonstrate a sufficiently strong case to justify such an order.
The decision therefore clears the way for the designated courts to continue handling the criminal proceedings affected by the Chief Justice’s warrants.
The ruling does not, however, mean that the Supreme Court has finally determined whether the Chief Justice’s directives are constitutionally valid.
That substantive question remains pending.
Article 17 discrimination argument rejected
Another important part of Mr Oppong Nkrumah’s argument concerned Article 17 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination.
The applicant argued that the manner in which cases were selected for hearing during the legal vacation raised constitutional concerns relating to equality and non-discrimination.
Justice Pwamang rejected that argument, finding no evidence that the Chief Justice had directed that the law be applied differently to particular individuals.
The court also noted that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had acknowledged that the Chief Justice possesses discretion to issue warrants relating to the administration of the courts.
The judge therefore found it difficult to conclude that assigning cases to judges for hearing during the legal vacation, on the evidence presented, amounted to discrimination.
The court further observed that the warrants were clear in their terms and concerned cases already pending before the relevant courts.
According to the reasoning reported from the ruling, the exercise was connected to the broader objective of creating opportunities for criminal cases to be heard and determined without being unnecessarily delayed.
Attorney-General’s role also considered
The proceedings also raised an issue concerning legal representation for the Chief Justice.
The Supreme Court held that the Attorney-General was properly entitled to represent the Chief Justice in the matter.
The court relied on an earlier Supreme Court decision, Republic v Tsatsu Tsikata, in which the apex court recognised the Attorney-General’s role in representing the Chief Justice as a public official in proceedings brought against him.
That aspect of the ruling provides an additional clarification concerning how constitutional and administrative challenges involving senior judicial officers are to be handled before the courts.
The substantive constitutional case continues
While Friday’s ruling represents a setback for Mr Oppong Nkrumah’s attempt to immediately suspend the vacation trials, it does not bring his legal challenge to an end.
The substantive case remains pending before the Supreme Court.
That means the court will still have to consider the broader constitutional questions surrounding the Chief Justice’s warrants and the extent of the discretion exercised in directing certain judges to sit during the legal vacation.
For now, however, the practical effect of the ruling is clear: the legal vacation trials can proceed while the substantive constitutional challenge is being determined.
This distinction is important because the dismissal of an interlocutory injunction should not be interpreted as a final ruling on the constitutional validity of the Chief Justice’s administrative directives.
Legal team accepts ruling, awaits full reasoning
Following the decision, Mr Oppong Nkrumah’s lawyer, Frank Davies, indicated that the legal team would respect the court’s ruling and study the full decision before deciding on the next course of action.
The lawyer reportedly stressed the importance of allowing lawyers to critique judicial decisions professionally rather than attacking judges simply because a ruling goes against their clients.
Mr Davies also indicated that the legal team had applied for a certified true copy of the ruling from the Court Registrar and would examine the court’s detailed reasoning before determining what steps to take next.
A case with wider implications for Ghana’s justice system
The dispute comes at a time when Ghana’s Judiciary continues to face pressure to improve the speed with which criminal cases are heard and concluded.
Legal vacations traditionally provide a period when the courts operate under a different schedule. However, the designation of selected judges to continue hearing criminal matters during the vacation is intended, among other things, to ensure that important cases do not remain unnecessarily dormant.
The legal challenge has consequently brought into focus a broader question: how should the Judiciary balance administrative efficiency and the need to reduce delays in criminal proceedings with constitutional limits on the exercise of discretionary powers?
That question now extends beyond the immediate dispute over the 2026 legal vacation.
The Supreme Court’s eventual determination of the substantive case could provide important guidance on the scope of the Chief Justice’s administrative authority and the constitutional safeguards that must accompany the exercise of that authority.
For Mr Oppong Nkrumah, Friday’s ruling means his immediate attempt to stop the vacation proceedings has failed. But his wider constitutional challenge remains alive, leaving the door open for further legal arguments and, ultimately, a definitive ruling on the underlying constitutional issues.
GhanaianNewsCanada will continue to follow the case and report on developments as the Supreme Court considers the substantive constitutional challenge.
