The High Court has adjourned the trial of Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his wife Angela Adjei-Boateng to August 25, 2026, pending the Supreme Court’s determination of an application seeking to restrain the High Court from continuing the proceedings during the legal vacation.
The case, which was expected to continue before the vacation court, was adjourned after the judge ruled that he could not proceed while the injunction application remained pending before the Supreme Court.
The application, filed by the Member of Parliament for Ofoase/Ayirebi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, has a return date of August 20, 2026.
Counsel for the accused persons, Peter Osei-Asamoah, holding brief for lead counsel Samuel Atta Akyea, had initially asked the High Court to adjourn the case to the next legal term.
He told the court that Mr Atta Akyea had pre-arranged professional commitments during the legal vacation, making it difficult for him to attend the proceedings and conduct cross-examination.
Mr Osei-Asamoah argued that the adjournment was necessary to ensure that the accused persons received adequate legal representation, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
He also informed the court that a separate application had been filed at the Supreme Court seeking to restrain the High Court from continuing with the trial during the vacation.
The Deputy Attorney General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, opposed the request.
He argued that the mere filing of an injunction application did not prevent the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction unless the Supreme Court had actually issued an order restraining the proceedings.
According to him, it would be contrary to justice and proper procedure for a party to halt proceedings simply by filing an application asking a superior court to restrain a lower court.
Dr Srem-Sai further argued that challenges to the validity or propriety of proceedings before a lower court are ordinarily pursued through judicial review processes, including certiorari or prohibition, and that such proceedings do not automatically prevent the lower court from continuing until an order is made.
Mr Osei-Asamoah, however, maintained that the defence was not suggesting that the High Court had already been restrained by an injunction.
He said the defence was asking the court to await the Supreme Court’s decision because the pending application directly sought to restrain the High Court from continuing the trial.
He argued that, given the short period before the Supreme Court’s return date, it was reasonable for the High Court to defer further proceedings.
In his ruling, the High Court judge rejected the defence’s request to adjourn the case to the next legal term based on Mr Akyea’s professional commitments.
The judge noted that granting the request would effectively move the case to October and defeat the purpose for which he had been assigned as a vacation judge.
He also observed that Mr Atta Akyea practises in a law firm with other lawyers who could potentially represent the accused persons in his absence.
On the pending injunction application, however, the judge took a different position from the prosecution.
He acknowledged two approaches in Ghanaian jurisprudence on the effect of a pending injunction application.
One view is that the mere pendency of an injunction application does not halt proceedings and that only an actual injunction order can prevent a court or party from taking the prohibited action.
The other view, which the judge adopted, is that where an application is pending before a superior court specifically seeking to restrain a lower court from taking a particular action, the lower court should await the determination of that application.
The judge held that the application before the Supreme Court, which seeks to restrain the High Court from conducting proceedings during the legal vacation, was different from an application for a stay of proceedings arising from a decision of the trial court.
He therefore ruled that he could not continue with the trial while the injunction application remained pending before the Supreme Court.
The case has consequently been adjourned to August 25, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., by which time the Supreme Court is expected to have determined the injunction application.
