The legal landscape in Ghana is currently embroiled in a significant controversy following a forceful accusation by Deputy Attorney General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, against Ofoase-Ayirebi MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah and his legal team. Dr. Srem-Sai has formally accused the MP and his team of deliberately disseminating a ‘deliberate falsehood’ regarding a directive issued by the Supreme Court concerning a claim concerning a Chief Justice’s directive on a legal vacation. The accusations stem from the Supreme Court’s recent dismissal of Mr. Nkrumah’s interlocutory injunction, which sought to suspend criminal trials scheduled to continue during the ongoing legal vacation.
Following the rejection of Mr. Nkrumah’s application, Justice Gabriel Pwamang, presiding as a single judge of the Supreme Court, found the applicant’s challenge to the directive to be lacking sufficient grounds for granting relief. The ruling, released on August 21, 2026, dismissed the interlocutory injunction, concluding that the applicant had failed to demonstrate a credible basis for the court to intervene.
In a Facebook post, Dr. Srem-Sai expressed his conviction that the Chief Justice authorized only two judges to hear selected cases during the legal vacation, and that this arrangement constitutes a deliberate falsehood. He specifically referenced Exhibit D, which he asserted proves that the Chief Justice’s directive was a general directive, not restricting the judges to hearing specific cases.
Dr. Srem-Sai further highlighted Exhibit E, demonstrating that 29 judges, rather than two, were present during the legal vacation. He argued that the legal challenge, despite its impact, has resulted in the courts being unable to operate normally for a week. He characterized the situation as a powerful attempt to undermine the legal system, stating, ‘The point, however, is that they have succeeded in preventing the courts from working for one week. Never underestimate the power of deliberate falsehood.’
Mr. Nkrumah’s substantive case, challenging the Chief Justice’s administrative warrants, remains before the Supreme Court.
The MP argues that the directive allowing selected High Court judges to continue hearing criminal cases during the legal vacation is unconstitutional, and that this directive constitutes an unlawful restriction on judicial authority. The legal battle centers on the fundamental principle of judicial independence and the ability of the courts to function effectively.
The Supreme Court’s ruling has undoubtedly ignited considerable debate within the legal community, and the implications for the future of the legal process are considerable. The situation highlights a potential challenge to the Chief Justice’s authority and raises concerns about the potential for legal maneuvering and manipulation within the judicial system.
Watch Related Video
Source: Adom Online
