The Supreme Court has dismissed an application by Ofoase Ayirebi MP, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, seeking a review of an earlier decision that rejected his request for an injunction against warrants allowing High Court judges to sit during the legal vacation.
A three-member panel, presided over by Justice Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi, unanimously dismissed the application on Wednesday, September 2, 2026, ruling that it failed to meet the threshold for the Court’s limited review jurisdiction.
The Court held that the application did not demonstrate the special or exceptional circumstances required to justify a review of the earlier decision by Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, who had dismissed the MP’s injunction application.
Delivering the ruling, Justice Kulendi said the panel had considered the processes filed by both parties, including their affidavits, legal arguments and oral submissions.
“Our unanimous decision is that the application failed at the threshold on all grounds and as such ought to be dismissed as unmeritorious,” the Court held.
Oppong Nkrumah’s application arose from a substantive suit challenging the constitutionality and legality of warrants issued to High Court judges to enable them to hear certain criminal cases during the legal vacation.
The warrants concern criminal proceedings involving former National Signals Bureau boss Kwabena Adu Boahen and former National Food Buffer Stock Company Chief Executive Officer Abdul Hanan Wahab.
Oppong Nkrumah had asked the Supreme Court to restrain the implementation of the warrants pending the determination of his constitutional challenge.
After Justice Pwamang, sitting as a single Justice of the Supreme Court, dismissed the injunction application, the MP invoked the Court’s review jurisdiction.
Lawyers make competing arguments
Represented by lawyer Frank Davies, Oppong Nkrumah argued that there were errors apparent on the face of Justice Pwamang’s ruling.
His counsel questioned the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings during the legal vacation, arguing that if criminal trials could proceed without warrants, there would be no need for the disputed warrants.
The applicant also argued that Justice Pwamang had gone beyond the proper scope of an interlocutory application by making findings touching on the merits of the substantive constitutional case.
The Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, opposed the application, arguing that the MP had failed to identify any special or exceptional circumstances to warrant the Supreme Court’s intervention.
He maintained that the Court’s review jurisdiction could not be used as an appeal or as an avenue to re-argue issues already determined by the single Justice.
Substantive case remains pending
After considering the arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court dismissed the review application.
The full reasons for the decision are expected to be available at the Supreme Court Registry on September 7, 2026.
The substantive constitutional challenge concerning the warrants, however, remains pending.
