The High Court has adjourned the trial of former National Security Minister Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng, to August 25, 2026, pending a decision by the Supreme Court on an application seeking to halt proceedings during the legal vacation.
The case, which was scheduled to continue before the vacation court, was put on hold after the High Court judge ruled that he could not proceed while the application remained pending before the apex court.
The application was filed by the Member of Parliament for Ofoase/Ayirebi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, and is scheduled to be heard on August 20, 2026.
Defence seeks adjournment
During proceedings, counsel for the accused persons, Peter Osei-Asamoah, who was holding brief for lead counsel Samuel Atta Akyea, initially asked the court to postpone the trial until the next legal term.
He explained that Mr Atta Akyea had prior professional engagements during the legal vacation, which would make it difficult for him to attend the trial and conduct cross-examination.
Mr Osei-Asamoah argued that granting the request was necessary to protect the accused persons’ constitutional right to effective legal representation.
He also drew the court’s attention to the application pending before the Supreme Court seeking an order to restrain the High Court from continuing with the trial during the vacation.
Prosecution opposes request
The Deputy Attorney General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, opposed the application for an adjournment.
He argued that the mere filing of an injunction application did not deprive the High Court of its jurisdiction to continue hearing the case.
According to him, proceedings could only be halted if the Supreme Court had actually issued an order restraining the High Court.
Dr Srem-Sai further submitted that where a party challenges proceedings before a lower court, the appropriate legal avenues ordinarily include applications for judicial review, such as certiorari or prohibition.
He maintained that such applications do not automatically suspend proceedings unless the superior court issues an order to that effect.
Judge takes different position
Mr Osei-Asamoah, however, clarified that the defence was not claiming that the High Court had already been restrained by the Supreme Court.
Rather, he said, the defence was asking the High Court to wait for the Supreme Court to determine the application because it specifically sought to prevent the trial from continuing during the legal vacation.
He argued that, given the short period before the Supreme Court’s scheduled hearing, postponing the case was reasonable.
In his ruling, the High Court judge rejected the request to adjourn the trial solely because of Mr Atta Akyea’s professional commitments.
The judge noted that such an adjournment could effectively push the case to October, which would undermine the purpose of his assignment 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 during his absence.
However, the judge reached a different conclusion regarding the pending Supreme Court application.
He noted that there were two approaches in Ghanaian legal jurisprudence concerning the effect of a pending injunction application.
One position holds that filing an injunction does not automatically stop proceedings and that an actual injunction order is required before a lower court is restrained.
The other approach, which the judge adopted, is that where a superior court is actively considering an application specifically seeking to restrain a lower court from taking a particular action, the lower court should wait for the superior court’s determination.
The judge held that the application before the Supreme Court was specifically aimed at preventing the High Court from conducting the trial during the legal vacation and was therefore distinct from an application seeking a stay of proceedings arising from a decision of the trial court.
He consequently ruled that it would be inappropriate for the High Court to proceed with the trial while the Supreme Court application remained pending.
The case has been adjourned to August 25, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., by which time the Supreme Court is expected to have ruled on the injunction application.
