Legal Vacation: Deputy AG, Oppong Nkrumah clash over Supreme Court ruling

The Deputy Attorney General Dr Justice Srem-Sai and Member of Parliament for Ofoase-Ayirebi Kojo Oppong Nkrumah have engaged in a public disagreement over the interpretation of a Supreme Court ruling concerning the hearing of criminal cases during the legal vacation.

The dispute followed the Supreme Court’s decision on August 21, 2026, to dismiss an interlocutory injunction application filed by Oppong Nkrumah, seeking to prevent some High Court judges from continuing with criminal proceedings during the vacation period.

Justice G Pwamang, who heard the application as a single judge of the Supreme Court, ruled that Oppong Nkrumah had not established a serious constitutional issue that would warrant the injunction he was seeking against the Chief Justice.

Following the ruling, Dr Srem-Sai, in a Facebook post, accused Oppong Nkrumah of presenting the court with what he described as a “deliberate falsehood” regarding the warrants issued by the Chief Justice.

The Deputy AG drew attention to the first relief contained in Oppong Nkrumah’s application, which sought a declaration that the warrants permitting certain High Court judges to sit during the legal vacation and hear criminal matters in “selected cases” were unconstitutional.

Dr Srem-Sai said the Attorney-General had expressly rejected that position in an affidavit filed to oppose the injunction.

Oppong Nkrumah reacts after Supreme Court clears vacation trials to proceed

He explained that the government’s position was that the Chief Justice had not instructed the judges to pick and choose particular criminal cases to hear during August and September 2026.

He further cited the Supreme Court’s conclusion that it was “factually inaccurate” to suggest that the warrants restricted the judges to hearing “selected cases”.

Rather, he said, the warrants gave the judges authority to hear cases pending before their respective courts.

Kojo Oppong Nkrumah subsequently responded to the Deputy AG’s comments, accusing him of giving the public an inaccurate account of what transpired before the Supreme Court.

“It is disappointing that the Deputy AG is on social media misinforming the public that my plaint was based on ‘deliberate falsehoods’,” Oppong Nkrumah said.

The former Works and Housing Minister insisted that the court proceedings did not support Dr Srem-Sai’s assertion.

“Where did the Judge find that it was based on ‘deliberate falsehoods’?” he asked.

He argued that the court’s record would show that the judge’s comments were instead directed at what he considered to be a misunderstanding of the application by the Deputy Attorney General.

Oppong Nkrumah also defended his decision to invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, maintaining that exercising a constitutional right to seek an interpretation of the law should not be portrayed negatively because of its impact on court proceedings.

“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 further pointed out that the Supreme Court has not yet determined the substantive constitutional case, stressing that the latest ruling concerned the application for an interlocutory injunction.

“The Deputy Attorney General cannot insist that courts must be respected and then attack litigants for invoking the powers of these very courts,” Oppong Nkrumah said.

The exchange stems from Oppong Nkrumah’s broader constitutional challenge to the Chief Justice’s decision to permit certain High Court judges to preside over criminal proceedings during the legal vacation, which is observed from August 1 to September 30, 2026.

'Deliberate attempt to undermine A-G' - Gyamfi jabs Afenyo-Markin over GoldBod claims

AK/AM