The Supreme Court has dismissed an application by Ofoase-Ayirebi Member of Parliament (MP) Kojo Oppong Nkrumah seeking to stop ongoing trials during the current legal vacation.
The Court, through Justice Gabriel Pwamang — the only judge who sat for the ruling — declared that the application by the MP had no merit, and that he had not made a proper case for an interlocutory injunction to be granted.
It said there was no harm in trial judges expediting the cases before them during the judiciary’s legal vacation, and that the judges were expected to sit on those cases as it already forms part of their mandate.
Lawyer for the applicant, Mr Frank Davies, who spoke to the media after the ruling, said he had no qualms with the court’s decision, but that whatever action they take — including applying for a review — will be decided once they receive a certified copy of the judge’s full ruling.
“As trained officers of the court, when you come to court, you come with an anticipatory mind. When you have an injunction application, whatever application you have with the court, it will either be refused or granted. So yes, the judge has made a determination; it is not in our place as lawyers to condemn the judge. We can only critique,” he said.
He said they have applied for a certified copy of the ruling and will deliberate further on whether to seek a review.
“We shall apply for [it], and when the ruling is handed to us, we shall read the written ruling in detail and appropriately advise our client,” he added.
The suit sought to halt the trials of former Buffer Stock CEO Hanan Abdul-Wahab, former National Signals Bureau boss Kwabena Adu Boahen and his wife, and other selected criminal cases during the legal vacation, which runs from August to September 30.
Hon. Kojo Oppong Nkrumah had earlier filed a substantive suit at the court challenging the constitutionality of warrants issued by the Chief Justice for selected judges to sit during the legal vacation. He later filed the injunction application to halt the trials pending the outcome of the main case.
He says the Chief Justice’s actions directly violate Articles 17 and 296 of the 1992 Constitution.