A Justice of the Supreme Court (SC), Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, is today expected to rule on an application seeking to restrain the High Court from conducting selected criminal trials during the legal vacation.
The application was filed by the Member of Parliament for Ofoase-Ayirebi in the Eastern Region, Mr Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, who is challenging the constitutionality of administrative warrants issued by the Chief Justice directing selected High Court judges to sit and conduct criminal proceedings during the legal vacation.
Justice Pwamang, sitting as a sole judge, heard arguments for and against the grant of the interlocutory injunction.
Mr Oppong Nkrumah, the plaintiff-applicant, joined the Attorney-General as the second respondent in the suit, which seeks a determination by the Supreme Court on whether the Chief Justice’s administrative warrants directing selected High Court judges to conduct criminal trials during the legal vacation are constitutional.
Counsel for the plaintiff-applicant, Mr Frank Davies, argued that because the Chief Justice had been named substantively as a defendant, he ought to have separate legal representation.
He contended that allowing the Attorney-General, an arm of the Executive, to represent the head of the Judiciary raised concerns about the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
“The Chief Justice heads an independent organ of the state, the Judiciary. We have the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive. They are supposed to be independent organs of the state,” he argued.
Mr Davies relied on an affidavit in support filed on August 14, 2026, as well as a supplementary affidavit filed on the morning of the hearing.
He submitted that it had been the practice of the courts to hear only urgent and non-contentious applications during the legal vacation, while trials proceeded only where lawyers and judges agreed on dates and a vacation warrant was obtained from the Chief Justice.
However, the Deputy Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Dr Edem Srem-Sai, argued that there was no conflict in the Chief Justice being represented by the Attorney-General.
He maintained that no such conflict had been demonstrated and that the Chief Justice, as the administrative head of the Judiciary, was properly represented by the Attorney-General.
He added that the legal representation provided by the Attorney-General did not diminish the Attorney-General’s own standing as a defendant in the suit.
Dr Srem-Sai further submitted that, in considering an application for an interlocutory injunction, the court had to determine whether there was a serious question to be tried, whether there was a risk of irreparable damage and where the balance of convenience lay.
He argued that the applicant’s case was based on a misunderstanding of the distinction between the Chief Justice’s administrative power to issue warrants, which the applicant himself acknowledged existed, and the judicial discretion of individual judges in managing their cases.
Justice Pwamang is expected to deliver his ruling today.
BY MALIK SULLEMANA
Follow our WhatsApp Channel now! https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbAjG7g3gvWajUAEX12Q
