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 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 the decision and grant the injunction he previously sought.
The application forms part of his substantive constitutional challenge to 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 latest application, the NPP legislator argues that Justice Pwamang made several errors in dismissing his earlier application.
One of the key issues raised concerns whether the Attorney-General can represent the Chief Justice in circumstances where the Chief Justice’s administrative actions are being challenged under Articles 23 and 296 of the 1992 Constitution.
Oppong Nkrumah maintains that Justice Pwamang erred in dismissing his preliminary objection on the issue.
He also argues that the Chief Justice’s failure to respond to his affidavit and deny his statement of case should have been taken into consideration when determining the injunction application.
The MP further contends that the single Justice went beyond the permissible scope of an interlocutory application.
According to him, although Justice Pwamang recognised that the substantive constitutional questions were not for determination at the interlocutory stage, the ruling nevertheless made definitive pronouncements which, in his view, substantially predetermined issues reserved for determination by the full bench.
Oppong Nkrumah is therefore asking the three-member panel to reconsider the legal approach adopted in dismissing his application and grant the interim relief sought.
He further argues that the Court did not sufficiently consider the public interest implications of allowing the disputed arrangements to continue.
The MP says serious constitutional questions remain pending determination in the substantive action and that allowing the affected criminal trials to continue could undermine the effectiveness of the case.
He also points to the time-sensitive nature of the warrants, arguing that interim relief is necessary because the legal vacation is already underway.
Oppong Nkrumah maintains that the balance of convenience favours temporarily restraining the implementation of the warrants rather than allowing the affected criminal trials to continue pending the final determination of the substantive case.
He is consequently 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.