Samuel Atta Akyea, lead Counsel for former Signals Bureau Director-General Kwadwo Adu Boahene, has described as “strange” the Accra High Court’s decision to dismiss his request for an adjournment pending the Supreme Court’s determination of a review application filed by Ofoase-Ayirebi MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah.

The review application, which is scheduled to be heard on September 2, challenges the earlier decision concerning the continuation of selected criminal cases during the legal vacation.

Mr Atta Akyea had asked the High Court to suspend proceedings in Mr Adu Boahene’s trial until the Supreme Court determines the review application.

He argued that the outcome of the application could have a direct bearing on the ongoing proceedings and that it would therefore be prudent for the trial judge to await the Supreme Court’s decision.

However, the Accra High Court rejected the request, with Justice Francis Apanga Achibonga stating that he had not identified any rule requiring the trial to be suspended in the circumstances.

The judge further held that although the earlier Supreme Court decision on the legal vacation was delivered by a single judge, it remained binding until it was set aside or reversed by a subsequent decision.

Reacting to the decision, Mr Atta Akyea said it was unexpected for the trial judge to proceed with the case despite the pending review application before a three-member panel of the Supreme Court.

“It's strange that the trial judge has dismissed our plea for adjournment,” he said.

According to him, he had specifically drawn the court’s attention to the fresh application before the Supreme Court and expected the trial judge to allow the apex court to determine the matter before proceeding.

“I thought the judge would respect the fact that the three judges should determine the injunction, which was restraining him from continuing with the case,” he said.

Mr Atta Akyea also expressed concern about the impact of the decision on his client, particularly the expectation that Mr Adu Boahene may have to cross-examine a prosecution witness.

He argued that his client, as a layperson, is not trained to conduct a cross-examination, while he himself did not want to be seen as deliberately defying the orders of the court.

“My client is not trained to do that, and I don't want to be seen also to be defying his orders, it is unfortunate,” he explained.

The defence maintains that the Supreme Court’s determination of the review application on September 2 could have implications for the trial and should therefore be awaited before the proceedings continue.