Deputy AG and Kojo Oppong Nkrumah clash over court injunction on legal vacation
A legal battle over the 2026 legal vacation has triggered a war of words between Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, and former Information Minister and MP for Ofoase-Ayirebi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah.
This follows an injunction application filed by Hon. Oppong Nkrumah challenging warrants by the Chief Justice directing some judges to sit during the legal vacation to hear criminal cases.
The High Court on Thursday granted a one-week injunction, effectively halting sittings during the vacation pending the determination of the substantive case.
How the exchange unfolded
In a Facebook post after the ruling, Dr Srem-Sai accused the Applicants of building their case on what he described as a “deliberate falsehood.
“According to him, the Plaintiff had alleged that the Chief Justice assigned “selected cases” to two judges to hear during the vacation, and therefore sought an injunction against the two judges.
“In court, however, their own evidence shows that their allegation was a deliberate falsehood. Their Exhibit D shows that the CJ’s warrant was general and not specific to any particular case. Worse is Exhibit E, which shows that as many as 29 Judges (not 2) are sitting during the legal vacation,” Dr Srem-Sai wrote.
He added: “The point, however, is that they have succeeded in preventing the courts from working for one week. Never underestimate the power of deliberate falsehood. Da yie.”But Kojo Oppong Nkrumah fired back, describing the Deputy AG’s comment as disappointing and misinformation of the public.
“It is disappointing that the Deputy AG is on social media misinforming the public that my plaint was based on ‘deliberate falsehoods.’ There were several reporters in court, and the ruling is a matter of public record. Where did the Judge find that it was based on ‘deliberate falsehoods’? he queried.
According to the MP, what the Judge rather said in open court was that the Deputy AG had misunderstood their application.”
And Srem, 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. Parties are entitled to approach the courts when they believe constitutional rights or principles have been breached. Remember the substantive matter is even yet to be heard and determined by the court,” he stated.
He added that the Deputy AG “cannot insist that courts must be respected and then attack litigants for invoking the powers of these very courts.”Srem-Sai responds again
In a second post titled “STILL ON THE ISSUE OF DELIBERATE FALSEHOOD”, Dr Srem-Sai quoted verbatim from the court documents to support his claim.
He cited the Plaintiff’s first relief, which sought:
“A declaration that the warrants of the Honourable Chief Justice directing some judges to sit and conduct criminal trials in ‘SELECTED CASES’ during the legal vacation is inconsistent with the letter and spirit of Articles 17(1), (2), 23 and 296(a) and (b) of the Constitution, 1992 and therefore unconstitutional, null and void.
“He contrasted it with Paragraph 9 of the Attorney-General’s affidavit in opposition, which stated:
“That the Attorney-General denies the allegation which says that the Chief Justice has directed the selection of or the two Judges in question have selected some special criminal cases to be tried during August and September 2026.
“He then quoted the Judge’s holding:
“With regard to Clause (2) on discrimination, the first point I wish to make is that it is factually inaccurate to say that the warrants required the Judges to conduct trials in ‘selected cases’. It is plain on the face of the warrants that the Judges have been given authorization to conduct hearings in all cases pending in their courts.
“Dr Srem-Sai accused the Plaintiff of misrepresenting the Judge after leaving court, when he claimed the court had “admitted that some cases are being treated differently.”
About The Author
