The Supreme Court has dismissed an injunction application seeking to restrain the High Court from conducting criminal trials during the ongoing legal vacation until the determination of a suit challenging the constitutionality of administrative warrants issued by the Chief Justice.

In a ruling this morning, Justice Gabriel Pwamang held that the motion failed to meet the ground of serious constitutional consideration to result in the issuance of an injunction.

"The fact that some criminal cases are not being heard during the legal vacation does not mean that the administration of justice would not be advanced to some extent.

"The fact that accused persons facing criminal prosecution do not usually take place during legal vacation ought not to be the ground for injuncting the Chief Justice's effort at enduring a speedy hearing of cases such as galamsey, narcotics," Justice Pwamang.

He said that while the court had jurisdiction to injunct the act of a public office, an applicant first had to demonstrate that the substantive case had a high chance of success before the other grounds for an injunction could be considered.

By this ruling, the Operation Recover All Loot (ORAL) cases being prosceuted by the Attorney-General which were stalled as a result of this application would resume next week. 

These include the trial of former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his wife, as well as former NAFCO Chief Executive Officer Hanan Abdul-Wahab, among others.

The application for injunction is tied to a substantive suit filed by the Member of Parliament for Ofoase-Ayirebi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, against the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General.

The MP is asking the apex court to determine whether administrative warrants issued by the Chief Justice, directing selected High Court judges to sit and conduct criminal trials during the legal vacation, are constitutional.

Mr Oppong Nkrumah has alleged that sitting during the legal vacation violates the rights of accused persons under Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees equality and freedom from discrimination.

However, Justice Pwamang said there was nothing to suggest the Chief Justice had directed that the law be applied differently to different persons, adding that the applicant had himself conceded the Chief Justice's discretion to issue the warrants.

He said he could not see how a directive for cases to continue during the vacation was discriminatory, particularly as the warrant required judges to conduct all cases pending before them, and that the applicant had not alleged the warrant was influenced by the colour, gender or religion of any accused person or witness.

He added that it would be difficult to impeach the Chief Justice's exercise of discretion without evidence.

Citing Articles 14(4) and 19(1), Justice Pwamang said the framers of the Constitution regarded speedy trial as so fundamental that a person in detention was entitled to conditional or unconditional release where trial was unreasonably delayed.

He said the warrants were part of an effort to give more criminal cases the chance to be heard expeditiously, and that the fact some cases were not being heard during vacation did not mean the administration of justice was not being advanced to some extent.

"The fact that accused persons facing criminal prosecution do not usually sit during legal vacation ought not to be the ground for injuncting the Chief Justice's effort at ensuring a speedy hearing of cases," he said.

Speaking to journalists after the ruling, Mr Oppong Nkrumah announced that he would seek a review of the Supreme Court's decision.

He said the court made what he described as "very interesting pronouncements" in its ruling, including an observation that some cases had been treated differently during the legal vacation.

"For the first time, the court has admitted that some cases have been treated differently. Those are the words of the judge," he said.