Member of Parliament for Ofoase-Ayirebi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, has once again approached the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn a decision by Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, who previously dismissed his application for an interlocutory injunction regarding the conduct of criminal trials during the current legal vacation.
Justice Pwamang, acting as a single Justice of the Supreme Court, rejected the injunction application on August 21, 2026.
Oppong Nkrumah is now asking a three-member panel of the Supreme Court to reverse that decision and grant the injunction he initially sought.
This application is part of the MP’s broader constitutional challenge against administrative directives issued by the Chief Justice, which allow selected High Court judges to preside over criminal trials during the legal vacation.
The legal vacation extends from August 1 to September 30, 2026. In his application, Oppong Nkrumah contends that Justice Pwamang committed several errors in dismissing the previous injunction application.
A significant issue raised is whether the Attorney-General is permitted to represent the Chief Justice in situations where the Chief Justice’s administrative actions are being contested under Articles 23 and 296 of the 1992 Constitution.
The applicant asserts that Justice Pwamang made an error in dismissing his preliminary objection regarding this matter.
Furthermore, Oppong Nkrumah argues that the Chief Justice’s lack of response to his affidavit and failure to refute his statement of case should have been considered when determining the application for an injunction.
The MP also claims that Justice Pwamang exceeded the allowable limits of an interlocutory application.
He points out that while the single Justice acknowledged that the substantive constitutional issues were not to be resolved at the interlocutory stage, the ruling nonetheless made definitive statements that, in the applicant’s opinion, significantly predetermined matters that were meant to be decided by the full bench.
He is consequently requesting that the three-member panel reassess the legal strategy employed in dismissing the injunction.
Kojo Oppong Nkrumah further contends that the Court did not adequately take into account the public interest ramifications of permitting the contested arrangements to persist.
He asserts that there are significant constitutional issues awaiting resolution in the main action and that the continuation of the affected criminal trials could jeopardize the integrity of the case.
The applicant additionally argues that the urgent nature of the warrants necessitates interim relief, especially given that the legal vacation is already in progress.
He argues that the balance of convenience supports the temporary suspension of the warrants’ implementation rather than permitting the affected trials to proceed while awaiting the final resolution of the main case.
The NPP legislator is therefore urging the three-member panel to grant an interlocutory injunction that would prevent the Chief Justice and designated judges from executing, enforcing, or acting upon the warrants that require selected High Court judges to convene during the legal vacation to conduct criminal trials.
