Supreme Court Rules on Vacation Trials Today

The Supreme Court will today, Friday, August 21, 2026, deliver a landmark ruling on whether High Court criminal trials can continue during the legal vacation, following a challenge by a Member of Parliament for Ofoase-Ayirebi,  Kojo Oppong Nkrumah.

Justice Gabriel Pwamang, sitting as a single judge, fixed the date after a full day of arguments on Thursday. His decision will determine whether trials currently underway must be suspended until the Supreme Court decides on the constitutionality of the Chief Justice’s administrative warrants.

The case has already had immediate practical consequences. Two separate High Court trials involving former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his wife, and former National Food Buffer Stock Company CEO Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba and his wife have been put on hold pending tomorrow’s ruling.

The application stems from a substantive suit filed by Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, who is challenging the Chief Justice’s decision to authorise selected High Court judges to hear cases during the vacation period, which runs from 1 August to 30 September.

Kojo Oppong Nkrumah argues that the warrant exceeds the Chief Justice’s constitutional administrative authority. His legal team contends that the directive allows judges to conduct cases as though court were in full session, rather than under the limited scope traditionally reserved for vacation sittings.

Frank Davies, counsel for the Ofoase-Ayirebi MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, told the court that the exercise of discretionary powers by public officials must comply with Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution. He argued that continuing trials before the constitutional question is resolved could prejudice accused persons, particularly where defence lawyers are unavailable during the vacation period.

Lawyer Davies cited instances where trial judges had refused adjournment requests despite counsel being unable to appear. In some cases, he said, judges had indicated that accused persons would be required to conduct their own defence in the absence of their lawyers — a development he described as infringing on the fundamental right to legal representation.

The lawyer further submitted that any harm suffered by accused persons could not be adequately remedied through monetary compensation, and that the balance of convenience favoured suspending all such trials until the Supreme Court determines the substantive constitutional question.

State Argues Application Lacks Merit

Deputy Attorney General Dr Justice Srem-Sai, who appeared for both the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General, opposed the application. He argued that the applicant had failed to establish the legal thresholds required for an interlocutory injunction — namely, proof of irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the relief sought.

Dr. Srem-Sai maintained that the Chief Justice’s warrant merely authorises courts to sit during vacation and does not interfere with the discretion of individual judges to manage their own proceedings. Any dissatisfaction with a trial judge’s decisions, he argued, should properly be pursued through judicial review rather than through an original action before the Supreme Court.

The Deputy Attorney-General also rejected the suggestion that a tradition existed barring trials during the legal vacation, stating that lawyers could not dictate to judges which matters would be heard.

Preliminary Objection Dismissed

Before arguments on the injunction began, Mr Davies raised a preliminary objection. He argued that because the Chief Justice was being sued over an administrative decision, established legal authority required that he be represented by independent counsel rather than the Attorney-General, citing several Supreme Court precedents.

Dr Srem-Sai opposed the objection, relying on the Domelevo case to argue that separate representation was only required where a conflict existed between the office holder and the Attorney-General’s position. He maintained that no such conflict had been demonstrated.

Justice Pwamang ruled that the Chief Justice had been properly served and had indicated his representation, and that the Attorney-General’s appearance did not diminish the Attorney-General’s own standing as a co-defendant in the suit. The judge will provide full reasons for this ruling alongside his decision on the injunction application tomorrow.

The Supreme Court’s decision today will clarify whether the High Court can continue conducting criminal trials during the legal vacation while the constitutionality of the Chief Justice’s warrants remains unresolved.

Legal observers note that the ruling could have far-reaching implications for the administration of justice in Ghana, particularly regarding the balance between judicial efficiency and the rights of accused persons during court recess periods.

Justice Pwamang is expected to deliver his ruling at 9:00 am today, Friday, 21 August 2026.