TMC MP Mahua Moitra moves Supreme Court alleging eviction from Nadia Circuit House in Bengal

The Supreme Court on Friday approved the continuation of certain Operation Recover All Loot (ORAL) cases at the High Court in Accra, rejecting an application to halt criminal trials during the ongoing legal vacation. MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah had challenged the constitutionality of administrative warrants issued by the Chief Justice, directing certain superior court judges to conduct criminal proceedings during the legal vacation.

Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, hearing the case as a sole judge, dismissed the application, stating it failed to present serious constitutional concerns that would justify an injunction. Pwamang emphasized that the fact some criminal cases were not typically heard during legal vacation does not prevent the administration of justice from advancing during this period.

He noted the practice should not hinder the Chief Justice from ensuring prompt resolution of cases involving serious offenses such as illegal mining and narcotics. The two cases cited by Nkrumah include those of former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his wife, as well as former National Food Buffer Stock Company CEO Hanan Abdul-Wahab, currently before Justice Francis Achibonga.

Nkrumah, the plaintiff-applicant, had joined the Attorney-General as the second respondent, seeking Supreme Court determination of the constitutionality of the administrative warrants. During the hearing, Nkrumah's counsel argued that since the Chief Justice was named as a substantive defendant, he should have separate legal representation.

They contended that having the Attorney-General represent the head of the Judiciary raised concerns about the separation of powers. However, the Deputy Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Dr Edem Srem-Sai, argued there was no conflict, maintaining the Chief Justice was properly represented by the Attorney-General. Srem-Sai pointed out that in determining an interlocutory injunction, the court must evaluate if there's a serious question to be tried, the likelihood of irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience.

The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the application, permitting the affected proceedings to proceed during the legal vacation.