Justice Gabriel Pwamang of the Supreme Court has fixed Friday, August 21, 2026, to deliver his ruling on an application for an interlocutory injunction filed by Member of Parliament for Ofoase-Ayirebi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, seeking to halt trials being conducted by specialised High Court judges during the legal vacation.
Justice Pwamang, sitting as a single judge of the Supreme Court, set the date after hearing arguments from counsel for Mr Oppong Nkrumah, led by Frank Davies, and Deputy Attorney General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, who represented both the Chief Justice and the Attorney General.
Moving the application, Mr Davies argued that the substantive suit challenges a warrant issued by the Chief Justice allowing High Courts to continue trials from August 1 to September 30, effectively permitting judges to conduct cases as they would during normal term time.
According to Mr Davies, the warrant contravenes the Constitution, and the exercise of discretion by the Chief Justice must conform to Article 296.
He said the established practice during the legal vacation was that only urgent and non-contentious matters were heard, while trials proceeded only when both lawyers and judges agreed, with judges obtaining a warrant from the Chief Justice upon a proposal by lawyers.
Otherwise, he said, cases were adjourned to the next legal term.
Mr Davies cited the case of Republic v Wontumi, in which a bail pending appeal application, ordinarily a vacation matter, was adjourned to October 15 because the judge was indisposed.
He questioned the rationale for allowing substantive trials to continue during the legal vacation under the current warrant.
He further argued that accused persons standing trial could be compelled to conduct their own cases when their lawyers were unavailable during the vacation, which he said would infringe on their right to counsel.
Opposing the application, Dr Srem-Sai said three considerations should guide the court in determining whether to grant the injunction: whether there was a serious question to be tried in the substantive case, whether irreparable damage could occur if the injunction was refused, and where the balance of convenience lay.
On whether there was a serious question to be tried, the Deputy Attorney General argued that the substantive action was based on two misapprehensions of the law.
First, he said there was a confusion between the Chief Justice’s administrative function of issuing a warrant and the judicial function of a trial judge in conducting proceedings.
He argued that if counsel was aggrieved by a judge’s refusal to adjourn a case, the appropriate remedy was certiorari and not an invocation of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Second, Dr Srem-Sai said the applicant had also misunderstood the distinction between a substantive judge and a holding judge.
He rejected the claim that there was an established tradition under which lawyers determined what judges could do during the legal vacation, arguing that such a practice did not exist and would be contrary to law.
On irreparable damage, the Deputy Attorney General argued that Mr Oppong Nkrumah, who is not an accused person before the High Court, had failed to demonstrate what irreparable harm he or the Ghanaian public would suffer if the trials continued.
He also pointed to the constitutional requirement for accused persons to be tried within a reasonable time.
On the balance of convenience, Dr Srem-Sai argued that in public law matters, there is a presumption that a public officer has acted properly unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
He maintained that no such exceptional circumstances had been established by the applicant.
After hearing both sides, Justice Gabriel Pwamang adjourned the case to Friday, August 21, 2026, for his ruling.
By: Ekow Annan/newsalertgh.com
