On 3 September 2026, the Supreme Court of Ghana issued a unanimous decision refusing a review application lodged by former Information Minister Kojo Oppong Nkrumah. The five‑member panel, chaired by Justice Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi and joined by Justices Richard Adjei‑Frimpong and Gbiel Simon Suurbaareh, held that the applicant had not satisfied the stringent threshold required to invoke the Court’s review jurisdiction. The bench described the petition as “unmeritorious” and ordered that the full reasons for the decision be filed at the Court’s registry by 7 September 2026.
The review arose from an earlier single‑Justice ruling dated 21 August 2026, when Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, sitting alone, refused an interlocutory injunction sought by Mr Oppong Nkrumah. The former minister argued that the single‑Justice decision misapplied legal‑vacation rules to criminal proceedings and overstepped the Court’s authority by addressing the merits of the underlying dispute. The Attorney‑General, represented by Deputy Attorney‑General Dr Justice Srem‑Sai, countered that review is confined to exceptional circumstances and that Mr Oppong Nkrumah had offered no such justification.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that review is not a substitute for a full appeal. It emphasized that the eight grounds advanced by the former minister failed to meet the “exceptional circumstances” standard required for review, reinforcing the principle that the Court’s review jurisdiction is narrowly tailored to prevent it from becoming a de‑facto appellate mechanism. The decision also reaffirmed procedural boundaries concerning the issuance of interlocutory injunctions and the application of legal‑vacation rules to criminal matters.
Legal analysts predict that the ruling will shape future litigants’ strategies when challenging single‑Justice orders, particularly in politically sensitive cases. By underscoring the need for clear evidence of extraordinary circumstances, the judgment is expected to be cited in upcoming disputes over procedural injunctions and the balance of power between the executive and the judiciary. The immediate next step is the filing of the Court’s detailed reasons, after which the parties may consider pursuing a direct appeal to the Court of Appeal if substantive issues remain unresolved. Observers note that the case highlights the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining procedural integrity while navigating high‑profile political controversies.
The Supreme Court’s decision thus marks a significant clarification of Ghanaian procedural law, reinforcing the limited scope of review and setting a precedent for how future interlocutory applications will be scrutinised under the legal‑vacation regime.