Vacation Trials: Deputy AG and Oppong Nkrumah Clash Over Supreme Court Ruling

The legal vacation may be a quiet period for the courts, but it has sparked a loud public disagreement between Deputy Attorney General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai and Ofoase-Ayirebi MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah. At the heart of the dispute is a Supreme Court ruling on whether High Court judges can hear criminal cases during the break, a decision that has now triggered a war of words over facts, fairness, and the right to seek constitutional clarity.

On August 21, 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed an interlocutory injunction application filed by Oppong Nkrumah. He had sought to stop some High Court judges from continuing criminal proceedings during the vacation, which runs from August 1 to September 30, 2026. Justice G. Pwamang, sitting as a single judge, ruled that Oppong Nkrumah had not raised a serious constitutional issue that would justify blocking the Chief Justice's warrants.

What did the Deputy Attorney General say?

Dr. Srem-Sai took to Facebook to accuse Oppong Nkrumah of presenting a “deliberate falsehood” to the court. He pointed to the first relief in the MP's application, which sought a declaration that the warrants allowing certain judges to hear criminal matters in “selected cases” were unconstitutional. The Deputy AG said the Attorney-General's office had already rejected that position in an affidavit opposing the injunction.

The government's stance, he explained, was clear: the Chief Justice did not instruct judges to cherry-pick specific cases. Instead, the warrants gave judges authority to hear cases already pending before their courts. The Supreme Court itself, he noted, concluded that it was “factually inaccurate” to suggest the warrants restricted judges to “selected cases.”

How did Oppong Nkrumah respond?

Oppong Nkrumah fired back, accusing the Deputy AG of misleading the public. “It is disappointing that the Deputy AG is on social media misinforming the public that my plaint was based on 'deliberate falsehoods,'” he said. The former Works and Housing Minister challenged Dr. Srem-Sai to point to where the judge made such a finding.

“Where did the Judge find that it was based on 'deliberate falsehoods'?” he asked. He argued that the court's record would show the judge's comments were aimed at what he saw as a misunderstanding by the Deputy AG, not at the MP's integrity.

Is seeking constitutional interpretation a right or a problem?

Oppong Nkrumah defended his decision to invoke the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, insisting that exercising a constitutional right should not be painted as an attack on the judiciary. “If my application has resulted in the courts not sitting for one week, that does not transform the constitutional right to seek interpretation into a falsehood,” he said.

He also stressed that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the substantive constitutional case. The latest decision only dealt with the interlocutory injunction, not the core legal questions. “The Deputy Attorney General cannot insist that courts must be respected and then attack litigants for invoking the powers of these very courts,” he added.

What is the bigger picture for Ghana's legal system?

This clash is part of a broader constitutional challenge to the Chief Justice's decision to allow certain High Court judges to handle criminal matters during the legal vacation. The outcome could shape how the judiciary manages its workload during the break, a period traditionally reserved for rest and administrative work.

For businesses and citizens, the stakes are practical: faster resolution of criminal cases could reduce delays in the justice system, a key factor for investor confidence and the rule of law. The debate also highlights the importance of clear communication between state institutions and the public, especially when legal procedures are misunderstood.

What happens next in the Supreme Court case?

The substantive constitutional case remains pending before the Supreme Court. Both sides are expected to present their full arguments in due course. For now, the public is left with a spirited debate over legal interpretation, the limits of judicial authority, and the proper way to challenge state actions.

As Ghana continues to strengthen its democratic institutions, this case serves as a reminder that even routine legal processes can spark significant national conversations. The key will be ensuring that the final ruling brings clarity, not just for the parties involved, but for the entire legal system.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the legal vacation in Ghana?

The legal vacation is a period from August 1 to September 30 when courts typically do not sit for regular business. However, judges can be assigned to hear urgent or specific cases during this time.

Why did Oppong Nkrumah challenge the vacation trials?

He argued that the Chief Justice's warrants allowing certain judges to hear “selected cases” were unconstitutional, as they might violate the principle of judicial independence and equal treatment under the law.

What did the Supreme Court decide on August 21, 2026?

The court dismissed the interlocutory injunction application, ruling that Oppong Nkrumah did not establish a serious constitutional issue that warranted blocking the proceedings. The substantive case is still pending.

How could this ruling affect businesses in Ghana?

If vacation trials continue, criminal cases could be resolved faster, reducing delays in the justice system. This could improve the business environment by strengthening the rule of law and investor confidence.