The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed a review application filed by Ofoase Ayirebi MP, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, which sought to overturn a previous ruling that refused an injunction regarding warrants issued to High Court judges during the legal vacation.
A three-member panel, presided over by Justice Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi, ruled on Wednesday, September 2, 2026, that the application failed to meet the strict legal threshold required for the court’s review jurisdiction.
Key Details of the Ruling:
- Lack of Exceptional Circumstances: The court stated that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or a gross miscarriage of justice necessary to overturn the earlier decision made by single judge Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang.
- Unanimous Decision: Justice Kulendi noted that after reviewing all legal processes, affidavits, and oral arguments, the panel unanimously found the application unmeritorious.
- Full Reasons Pending: The Supreme Court will release the full written reasons for its judgment at the court registry on September 7, 2026.
The underlying suit continues to challenge the constitutionality of issuing warrants for High Court judges to preside over select criminal cases during the court’s official vacation period.
Challenge to warrants
The application originated from Oppong Nkrumah’s substantive suit, which challenges the constitutionality and legality of warrants issued to High Court judges, allowing them to hear criminal trials during the legal vacation. These warrants pertain to the criminal cases of former National Signals Bureau boss Kwabena Adu Boahen and former CEO of the National Food Buffer Stock Company, Abdul Hanan Wahab.
Kojo Oppong Nkrumah sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the implementation of the warrants while his constitutional challenge was being determined. However, Justice Pwamang, sitting as a single Justice of the Supreme Court, dismissed the application for the injunction. This led the legislator to invoke the Court’s review jurisdiction.
Applicant’s case
Represented by Frank Davies, Oppong Nkrumah argued that there were patent errors on the face of the single Justice’s ruling which justified the intervention of the full Court. One of the central arguments concerned the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings during the legal vacation.
Frank Davies argued that the single Justice’s position that the legal-vacation provisions applied to civil proceedings but not criminal trials raised a fundamental question: if criminal trials could proceed during the vacation without a warrant, there was no need for the impugned warrants. He maintained that this amounted to an error apparent on the face of the ruling.
The applicant also argued that the single Justice had gone beyond the proper scope of an interlocutory application by making findings touching on the merits of the substantive constitutional case. Counsel further challenged the decision’s approach to the test for granting an interlocutory injunction in a public-interest case, arguing that the applicable threshold was whether there was a serious question of law to be tried rather than whether the applicant had demonstrated high prospects of success.
Attorney-General opposes review
The Deputy Attorney-General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, urged the Court to dismiss the application. He argued that the applicant had not demonstrated any special or exceptional circumstances that would warrant the exercise of the Supreme Court’s review jurisdiction.
He emphasised that review jurisdiction should not be used to reargue matters that had already been considered by a single Justice, nor could it serve as an appeal against that decision. According to him, the eight grounds presented by the applicant did not reveal any circumstances that met this threshold. After considering the arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court dismissed the review application.
