Member of Parliament for Ofoase-Ayirebi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, has returned to the Supreme Court seeking a reversal of a decision by Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, who dismissed his earlier application for an interlocutory injunction over the conduct of criminal trials during the ongoing legal vacation.
Justice Pwamang, sitting as a single Justice of the Supreme Court, dismissed the injunction application on August 21, 2026.
Oppong Nkrumah is now asking a three-member panel of the Supreme Court to overturn that ruling and grant the injunction he previously sought.
The application forms part of the MP’s substantive constitutional challenge concerning administrative directives issued by the Chief Justice for selected High Court judges to sit and conduct criminal trials during the legal vacation.
The legal vacation runs from August 1 to September 30, 2026.
In his application, Oppong Nkrumah argues that Justice Pwamang made several errors in dismissing the earlier injunction application.
A key issue raised is whether the Attorney-General can represent the Chief Justice in circumstances where the Chief Justice’s administrative actions are themselves being challenged under Articles 23 and 296 of the 1992 Constitution.
The applicant maintains that Justice Pwamang erred in dismissing his preliminary objection on the issue.
Oppong Nkrumah also argues that the Chief Justice’s failure to respond to his affidavit and deny his statement of case should have been taken into account in determining the application for an injunction.
The MP further contends that Justice Pwamang went beyond the permissible scope of an interlocutory application.
According to him, although the single Justice recognised that the substantive constitutional questions were not for determination at the interlocutory stage, the ruling nevertheless made definitive pronouncements which, in the applicant’s view, substantially predetermined issues reserved for determination by the full bench.He is therefore asking the three-member panel to reconsider the legal approach adopted in dismissing the injunction.
Kojo Oppong Nkrumah also argues that the Court failed to sufficiently consider the public interest implications of allowing the impugned arrangements to continue.
He says there are serious constitutional questions pending determination in the substantive action and that the continuation of the affected criminal trials could undermine the effectiveness of the case.
The applicant further argues that the time-sensitive nature of the warrants makes interim relief necessary, particularly because the legal vacation is already underway.
He maintains that the balance of convenience favours temporarily restraining the implementation of the warrants rather than allowing the affected trials to continue pending the final determination of the substantive case.
The NPP legislator is thus asking the three-member panel to issue an interlocutory injunction restraining the Chief Justice and designated judges from implementing, enforcing or giving effect to the warrants directing selected High Court judges to sit during the legal vacation to conduct criminal trials
