The Member of Parliament for Ofoase Ayirebi, Honourable Kojo Oppong Nkrumah has indicated that he and his legal team will consider seeking a review of the Supreme Court’s decision after studying the full reasons for dismissing his injunction application.
Honourable Oppong Nkrumah explained that although the application had been dismissed, the ruling contained observations which required careful examination before any further legal action could be determined. The former Information Minister pointed particularly to the court’s observation that some cases were being treated differently and expeditiously, noting that the ruling did not provide a clear explanation for the distinction.
According to him, the court nevertheless found that the circumstances did not amount to a violation of the constitutional provisions relied upon in the application. The court further considered the arrangement to be capable of serving the interests of accused persons by facilitating the timely determination of cases.
“We’ve asked for a certified copy so that we can peruse it some more, and then on the advice of counsel, we’ll take the next steps.”
Honourable Kojo Oppong Nkrumah
The legal team’s next move, he explained, would depend on the interpretation of the court’s reasoning and the advice received after a detailed review of the judgment. This position leaves open the possibility of further legal proceedings, including an application for review.
Responding to the possibility of a review, the Ofoase Ayirebi MP confirmed that such an option remained available for consideration. He, however, indicated that the decision would be taken after consultation with counsel and a proper assessment of the ruling.
The application formed part of a wider legal challenge concerning the constitutional basis for warrants issued by the Chief Justice to enable some High Court judges to hear criminal matters during the legal vacation.
The applicant’s case questioned whether the arrangement was consistent with constitutional guarantees, particularly the provisions relating to equality and non-discrimination. The Supreme Court, however, rejected the argument that the circumstances presented a sufficient basis for granting the injunction.
The ruling also addressed the question of whether the Chief Justice could be represented by the Attorney General in the proceedings. In doing so, the court relied on an earlier Supreme Court decision involving the representation of a public official.
The court also determined that there was no improper conduct in the Attorney General representing the Chief Justice in the matter. Its reasoning also considered the discretionary authority exercised in assigning cases to judges during the legal vacation.
Legal Team Accepts Ruling As Further Options Remain Open
The legal team has adopted a measured approach to the decision while awaiting the certified copy of the ruling for detailed consideration. Lawyer Frank Davies emphasised that lawyers are required to respect judicial determinations even when the outcome did not favour their clients.
From his perspective, the immediate responsibility was to study the reasons provided by the court before advising on the appropriate legal response. The approach, he explained, was grounded in professional duty and respect for the judicial process.
Frank Davies noted that an injunction application carried two possible outcomes, with the court ultimately exercising its authority to determine which position should prevail. His position is that lawyers could critique a judgment through proper legal channels without attacking the judge who delivered it.
“We’ll abide the ruling of the court for now. We have applied for a certified true copy of the ruling.”
Honourable Kojo Oppong Nkrumah
The certified copy therefore becomes central to the next stage of the case. Once received, the document is expected to provide the legal team with the detailed reasoning needed to assess the available options.
Addressing the conduct expected from legal practitioners, counsel stressed that dissatisfaction with a judicial outcome should be handled through established legal procedures. Such an approach allows parties to challenge decisions through recognised mechanisms while preserving the authority of the courts.
The ruling itself also dealt with the substantive arguments surrounding the assignment of criminal cases during the legal vacation. In particular, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the Chief Justice’s directives amounted to discriminatory treatment under the Constitution.
A further element of the judgment was the court’s assessment of the warrants issued to judges. The court observed that the warrants were clear in their terms and authorised the judges to deal with cases pending before their respective courts.
The court also considered whether the exercise of that authority had been linked to prohibited grounds such as colour, gender or religion. Its assessment found no evidence establishing such a connection.
Meanwhile, the wider constitutional challenge remains separate from the unsuccessful injunction application. The dismissal therefore deals with the request for interim relief while the substantive questions raised in the main case remain subject to further determination.
Analysing the immediate legal position, the refusal of the injunction allows the challenged arrangements to continue while the substantive constitutional matter progresses. The next steps will depend on the detailed assessment of the ruling and the advice provided to the applicant.
The court also linked the use of the legal vacation to efforts to create additional opportunities for criminal matters to be heard and determined without unnecessary delay. It held that the fact that some criminal cases were ordinarily not heard during the period did not prevent judicial proceedings from taking place when properly authorised.
READ ALSO: Mercy Ships CEO Hails Return to Ghana at Tema Port
