Ofoase-Ayirebi, Member of Parliament for Member of Parliament Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, is initiating a formal legal challenge to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling dismissing his application to halt the conduct of criminal trials by selected High Court judges during the annual legal vacation, commencing August 1st and concluding September 30th. This challenge stems from a significant disagreement with Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, who delivered a dismissal on Friday, August 21st, 2026, rejecting the interlocutory injunction application.
Mr. Nkrumah’s legal argument centers on a constitutional challenge to the Chief Justice’s administrative warrants authorizing these judges to conduct criminal trials during the vacation. The core of his dispute lies in questioning the constitutionality of this arrangement, particularly concerning the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive branch. Specifically, he contends that the arrangement raises concerns about the equitable application of the law and the proper exercise of administrative discretion.
Prior to the dismissal, Mr. Nkrumah invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court earlier this month, challenging the Chief Justice’s decision to permit selected judges to sit during the vacation to hear criminal cases. His substantive case focuses on the constitutional implications of this arrangement, arguing that it undermines fundamental principles of equality before the law and judicial fairness. He subsequently applied for an interlocutory injunction to suspend the operation of the warrants until the Supreme Court could determine the substantive constitutional challenge.
Justice Pwamang, however, dismissed the application, stating that Mr. Nkrumah’s case lacked sufficient evidence to warrant the interim relief. The Court further rejected the argument that the arrangement was discriminatory, noting that the warrants authorized the affected judges to conduct cases pending before their respective courts. The Court emphasized that the fact that criminal trials were not ordinarily conducted during the vacation does not necessitate the administration of justice being advanced during that period.
The Court’s ruling underscores a continuing debate regarding the purpose of the annual legal vacation and the extent to which the Judiciary can deploy administrative measures to expedite criminal case determination. The Chief Justice’s position, as articulated in the warrants and the respondents’ arguments, centers on facilitating the speedy disposal of criminal matters. The Supreme Court’s earlier decision remains under scrutiny, with the substantive constitutional questions to be determined remaining unresolved.
Mr. Davies, Mr. Oppong Nkrumah’s lawyer, previously argued that the continuation of trials could adversely affect accused persons’ rights to fair representation, particularly concerning the unavailability of lawyers during the vacation. The legal challenge has also generated a public discussion about the efficacy of the annual legal vacation and the extent to which the Judiciary can utilize administrative measures to accelerate criminal proceedings. The Chief Justice’s position, as reflected in the warrants and the arguments presented by the respondents, has been that the arrangement is intended to facilitate the speedy resolution of criminal matters. The latest application by Mr. Oppong Nkrumah will now put the Supreme Court’s earlier decision under renewed scrutiny, while the substantive constitutional questions to be determined continue.
Watch Related Video
Source: Adom Online
