The Supreme Court has cleared the way for selected criminal trials to continue during the legal vacation after dismissing an application by Ofoase-Ayirebi MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah seeking to halt the proceedings.

Justice Gabriel Pwamang, sitting as a single judge of the Supreme Court, ruled on Friday, August 21, 2026, that the applicant had not made a proper case for an interlocutory injunction.

The ruling means the affected courts can continue sitting under administrative warrants issued by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie.

However, the decision does not determine the substantive constitutional challenge filed by Mr Oppong Nkrumah, which remains pending before the Supreme Court.

Oppong Nkrumah filed a substantive suit challenging the constitutionality of warrants issued by the Chief Justice directing selected High Court judges to continue hearing criminal cases during the legal vacation, which runs from August 1 to September 30.

He argues that the directive violates provisions of the 1992 Constitution, including Articles 17 and 296, and amounts to selective justice.

He subsequently applied for an interlocutory injunction to suspend the warrants pending the determination of the substantive case.

The affected proceedings include the trial of former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his wife, as well as former NAFCO Chief Executive Officer Hanan Abdul-Wahab, among others.

Speaking after Friday’s ruling, counsel for Mr Oppong Nkrumah, Frank Davies, said the legal team accepted the decision and would study the court’s full reasoning before advising their client.

“When you come to court, you come to court with an anticipatory mind. When you have an injunction application, whatever application you have before the court will either be refused or will be granted. So yes, the judge has made a determination,” he said.

Frank Davies said lawyers were not expected to condemn judges when rulings went against their clients.

“It is not in our place as lawyers to condemn the judge. We can only critique,” he said.

He added that the legal team would abide by the ruling while awaiting the written decision.

“So we will abide by the ruling of the court for now,” Mr Davies stated.

Mr Davies said the legal team had applied for a certified true copy of the ruling from the court registrar.

He said they intended to study the decision in detail before determining the next course of action.

“We shall apply for when the ruling is handed to us, we shall read in detail the written ruling and appropriately advise our client,” he said.

The dismissal of the injunction allows the selected criminal trials to proceed during the legal vacation.

However, the broader constitutional question remains unresolved.

The Supreme Court will still have to determine the substantive suit challenging the validity of the Chief Justice’s warrants.

That eventual decision will determine whether the administrative arrangement directing selected judges to sit during the legal vacation is constitutionally valid.