The Supreme Court has dismissed the application for interlocutory injunction filed by the NPP Member of Parliament for Ofoase Ayirebi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, seeking to stay proceedings pending the final determination of his suit challenging the constitutionality of warrants issued by the Chief Justice for High Court Judges to sit on criminal cases during the legal vacation.
In a decisive ruling delivered on August 21, 2026, the apex court held that the applicant had”woefully failed to establish a prima facie case of sufficient merit” to warrant an injunction restraining the Chief Justice from exercising his constitutional and administrative mandate.
Presiding as a sole Judge, His Lordship Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, also clarified the propriety of the Attorney-General representing the Chief Justice.
The Court underscored that its own precedent in the celebrated case of Republic vrs Tsatsu Tsikata had settled the principle that the Chief Justice, being a public official, is entitled to be represented by the Attorney-General in actions instituted against him in that capacity.
Consequently, the Court found nothing improper in the Attorney-General entering appearance for the Chief Justice.
A central plank of the MP’s argument was that the directive assigning criminal cases to Judges during the legal vacation amounted to a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equality and non-discrimination under Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution.
That argument was roundly rejected.
“I am unable to see how the directive assigning cases to be heard during the legal vacation can be said to be discriminatory,” the Court held.
The Court said there was no scintilla of evidence that the Chief Justice had directed that the law should be applied differentially to persons who appear before the courts.
The applicant himself had conceded that the Chief Justice is clothed with discretion to issue warrants assigning Judges.
The Court further observed that the applicant failed to allege that the decision was actuated by considerations of colour, gender, religion or any other constitutionally proscribed grounds.
Rather, the issuance of the warrants forms part of a deliberate effort to create avenues for more criminal cases to be heard and expeditiously determined, the court stressed.
The mere fact that some criminal cases are not ordinarily heard during the legal vacation does not fetter the advancement of the administration of justice during that period, the Judge added.
Justice Pwamang therefore dismissed the application in its entirety.
The substantive suit challenging the constitutionality of the warrants will proceed separately.
