On 21 August 2026 the Ghanaian Supreme Court issued an interlocutory ruling that clears the way for a handful of high‑profile criminal trials to continue while the country observes its annual legal‑vacation period. Justice Gabriel Pwamang, sitting alone, rejected an urgent injunction filed by Ofoase‑Ayirebi MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, who asked the Court to suspend the continuation of those cases pending a wider constitutional challenge to the administrative warrants issued by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe‑Bonnie. The Court held that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had not shown a “real risk of injustice” nor presented a prima facie case strong enough to justify an emergency suspension of the warrants. Consequently, the High Court judges directed by the Chief Justice to sit on criminal matters from 1 August to 30 September may now proceed with the docket.
Among the matters affected are the trial of former National Signals Bureau Director‑General Kwabena Adu‑Boahene and his wife, and the case involving former NAFCO chief executive officer Hanan Abdul‑Wahab. Both cases had been scheduled to be heard during the legal‑vacation period, a practice introduced to prevent a backlog of serious criminal matters that could extend well beyond the holiday season.
The substantive suit that remains pending challenges the constitutionality of the warrants on the basis that they breach Articles 17 and 296 of the 1992 Constitution, which protect the right to a fair trial and prohibit selective administration of justice. Mr Oppong Nkrumah argues that the selective deployment of judges creates a two‑tier system, favouring certain defendants while denying others the same procedural opportunity. The Supreme Court’s interim decision does not resolve these constitutional questions; it merely allows the criminal docket to function under the existing administrative framework until the substantive matter is finally decided.
Legal practitioners view the ruling as a pragmatic move that averts a backlog of serious criminal cases while preserving the Court’s ability to address the larger constitutional issue in a later judgment. The parties are expected to file written submissions on the merits of the warrants shortly, and the Supreme Court has indicated it will deliver a full judgment before the end of the legal‑vacation season. The outcome will have far‑reaching implications for the balance between judicial efficiency and constitutional safeguards in Ghana’s criminal justice system.
The decision underscores the tension between the need for swift justice and the imperative to uphold constitutional guarantees. If the substantive challenge succeeds, it could reshape how Ghana manages judicial resources during the legal vacation, potentially requiring a uniform approach to all criminal cases rather than selective scheduling. Until then, the high‑profile trials will proceed, providing a test of the current system’s resilience and fairness.