The Supreme Court is set to announce its decision regarding the injunction application aimed at preventing specialized courts from convening during the legal vacation today, Friday, August 21.
Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, the MP for Ofoase Ayirebi, has submitted a writ to the Supreme Court contesting the Chief Justice’s decision to permit certain judges to preside over criminal cases during the legal vacation.
He is requesting that the apex court declare the warrants issued by the Chief Justice as unconstitutional.
Justice Gabriel Pwamang, acting as a single judge, postponed the case after the legal representatives for Kojo Oppong Nkrumah and the respondents presented their arguments on Thursday, August 20.
When the case was called, the counsel for Oppong Nkrumah, led by Frank Davies, objected to the Deputy Attorney General representing the Chief Justice.
He contended that, as the Chief Justice is a defendant in this case, he should have independent representation rather than relying on the Attorney General’s Office.
However, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai disagreed with this assertion. He stated that the Chief Justice should only seek separate representation in instances where there is a conflict between the constitutional office’s position and that of the Attorney General.
He further emphasized that the general principle dictates that the Attorney General represents public officials, noting that Frank Davies had not provided any compelling reason to deviate from this norm in this case.
In support of the motion for the interlocutory injunction, the applicant’s attorney argued that it has been the established practice of the court to hear only urgent and non-contentious matters during legal vacations.
“If a trial is conducted during the legal vacation, the customary procedure is that both lawyers and judges agree to convene and address the matters during this period. The lawyers suggest a date, and the judges obtain a warrant from the Chief Justice to proceed. Otherwise, all cases are postponed until the term time,” he remarked.
He called upon the Supreme Court to issue the injunction and prevent the courts from proceeding until the substantive matter is resolved.
“The damage that the accused will suffer cannot be measured in terms of monetary compensation. It impacts the rights and freedoms of the accused individuals, and financial awards cannot remedy that,” Frank Davies asserted.
In opposition to the request for an injunction, Deputy Attorney General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai stated that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria necessary for the issuance of an interlocutory injunction.
It is well established that three factors must be evaluated when determining whether to grant or deny an application for an interlocutory injunction: the existence of a serious question in the substantive matter, the potential for irreparable harm if the application is denied, and whether the balance of convenience favors the granting of the application.
He contended that the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would warrant the issuance of an injunction, arguing that the public interest takes precedence over any disruption to the trial proceedings.
Following the presentation of arguments, Justice Pwamang scheduled his ruling on the injunction application for Friday, August 21.
