The Supreme Court has dismissed an objection raised by lawyers of Member of Parliament for Ofoase-Ayirebi MP, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, against the Deputy Attorney General representing the Chief Justice in his suit challenging the vacation court trials.
Justice Gabriel Pwamang, sitting as a single judge, overruled the objection on Thursday August 20 and said full reasons for his decision will be contained in his ruling on the interlocutory injunction application slated for August 21, 2026.
The case titled, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah v Chief Justice and Attorney General, had Frank Davies representing the plaintiff/applicant, while Deputy Attorney General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai appeared for both respondents (CJ and AG).
When the case was called, Frank Davies raised an objection saying “We have a problem with the Deputy Attorney General (DAG) representing both the CJ and the AG, because we are guided by the legal position of this court and unless the court intended to depart from that decided principle, we submit that the Chief Justice should be represented by counsel other than the AG.”
He argued that the Chief Justice is sued not as part of the State in its judicial capacity but in respect of an administrative discretion being challenged – which is the issuance of a warrant authorizing High Court judges to conduct trials during the legal vacation.
“It is strictly the administrative decision of the issuance of the warrant that we are here (to challenge)” Frank Davies submitted.
He cited the cases of – Naa Kwaley Amegatse v Attorney General, Speaker of Parliament and Electoral Commission_ (J1/1/2012) delivered on May 9, 2012 and James Marshall Beilee v Attorney General and Chief Justice, where he argued that, Article 88(5) which mandates the AG to defend all civil cases against the state does not apply where the Chief Justice exercises administrative discretion.
“The Chief Justice is a defendant in this matter because of an administrative discretion which is being challenged and so far as that is concerned this court has said that the Chief Justice must have representation other than the Attorney General,” he submitted.
Deputy AG’s responds
In reply, Deputy Attorney General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai described the objection as unfounded.
He submitted that it is only where there is a conflict between the position of a constitutional office holder and that of the Attorney General that separate legal counsel becomes necessary, and that the Domelevo case is clear on that principle.
“The general principle is that the Attorney General represents public officials. No exceptional ground has been laid by the applicant as to why an exception should be made in this case,” Dr. Srem-Sai argued.
He added: “There is no doubt that the Chief Justice is being sued as the administrative head of the Judiciary and that settles the matter.”
Court’s ruling
In his bench ruling, Justice Pwamang dismissed the objection and said his reasons would be provided in the ruling in the injunction on Friday, August 21.
“The CJ was served with the processes in this matter and has sent a lawyer to represent him. The legal representation allowed by the AG does not take away the right of the AG as a defendant,” Justice Pwamang ruled.
“I shall give full reasons for my position in my ruling on the motion,” he held.
The court subsequently heard the substantive arguments on the interlocutory injunction application against the vacation court conducting trials, and adjourned the matter to August 21, 2026, for ruling.
Source: Starrfm.com.gh
