The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed an application by the Member of Parliament for Ofoase-Ayirebi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, seeking a review of its earlier decision dismissing his application for an injunction against the hearing of selected criminal cases during the legal vacation.
The decision was delivered by a three-member panel of the apex court on Wednesday, September 2, 2026.
The latest ruling is a further setback for the MP in his legal challenge to the conduct of criminal trials during the legal vacation.
Request for Adjournment
At the commencement of proceedings, lawyers for Mr Oppong Nkrumah asked the Court to adjourn the hearing of the review application, citing the late service of documents by the Attorney-General’s Department.
Counsel for the MP, Frank Davies, told the Court that the documents had been served on him late and argued that he required additional time to study them and prepare an appropriate response.
He therefore prayed the Court to postpone the hearing to allow the defence adequate time to respond to the documents.
The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the request for an adjournment and proceeded to hear the substantive review application.
Challenge to Legal Vacation Trials
Mr Oppong Nkrumah had earlier invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to challenge the hearing of what he described as selected criminal cases during the legal vacation.
His initial application sought an interlocutory injunction to suspend the conduct of the affected proceedings during the vacation period.
The Supreme Court, however, dismissed that application on August 21, 2026, with Justice Gabriel Pwamang holding that the applicant had failed to establish a proper case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction.
Dissatisfied with that decision, the Ofoase-Ayirebi MP subsequently filed the present review application, seeking to have the Court reconsider and reverse its earlier decision.
The three-member panel, however, unanimously dismissed the review application.
The dismissal means that Mr Oppong Nkrumah has suffered another adverse ruling in his attempt to halt the hearing of selected criminal cases during the legal vacation.
The substantive constitutional issues raised in his broader challenge remain distinct from the interlocutory applications and are yet to be finally determined.
