Four major criminal cases involving former appointees of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) government have been listed for hearing before Justice Francis Apangabuno Achibonga, of the High Court’s Specialised Court “1” in Accra during the ongoing legal vacation.

The cases include proceedings involving former officials and other accused persons, according to a search conducted by the Registry of the High Court following a request filed on August 24, 2026.

The list contains CR/0038/2026 — The Republic v Mustapha Abdul Hamid & Ors.; CR/0106/2026 — The Republic v Kenneth Nana Yaw Ofori-Atta & Ors.; CR/0536/2026 — The Republic v Hanan Abdul-Wahab & Anor.; and CR/0418/2025 — The Republic v Kwabena Adu-Boahene & Ors.

The search was requested in connection with Criminal Case No. CR/0418/2025, in which Kwabena Adu-Boahene, Angela Adjei Boateng and Advantage Solutions Ltd are named as accused persons.

A document filed at the High Court on August 24, 2026, asked the Registry to provide the “full complement of cases slated for hearing” before Justice Achibonga during the legal vacation.

The Registry subsequently endorsed the request with the four cases listed.

The document was signed by lawyer Samuel Atta Akyea, counsel for the accused persons in the CR/0418/2025 case.

The listing is significant because it brings together four major criminal proceedings involving former NPP appointees before the same judge during the legal vacation period.

However, the document does not state the specific hearing dates, charges or allegations in each of the four cases. It only confirms the cases identified by the Registry as being slated for hearing before Justice Achibonga during the period.

The cases are proceedings of the Republic against the respective accused persons, and the listing itself should not be construed as a determination of guilt against any of the accused.

In related news, the Supreme Court has thrown out an injunction application filed by Ofoase-Ayirebi Member of Parliament, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, who was seeking to suspend proceedings pending the final determination of a case challenging the constitutionality of a warrant allowing some High Court judges to conduct criminal trials during the legal vacation.

According to the Supreme Court, the applicant had failed to establish a sufficiently strong case to warrant the grant of an injunction against the Chief Justice’s exercise of his constitutional and administrative powers.

Oppong Nkrumah was represented by private legal practitioner Frank Davies, who asked the apex court to suspend the operation of the warrant issued by the Chief Justice.

The Chief Justice was also represented by the Attorney General.

The Supreme Court, in its ruling, explained the reasons for allowing the Attorney-General to represent the Chief Justice, citing that the Supreme Court had previously held in the Republic vrs Tsatsu Tsikata that the Chief Justice, being a public official, could be represented by the Attorney-General in proceedings brought against him.

The Court further observed that the applicant himself had acknowledged that the Chief Justice had discretion to issue warrants assigning judges to conduct cases.

“I am unable to see how the directive assigning cases to be heard during the legal vacation can be said to be discriminatory,” the Court held.

According to the Court, the warrants were clear on their face that the judges were expected to conduct cases pending before their respective courts.

Oppong Nkrumah’s legal team argued that the injunction was necessary to preserve the status quo while the court considers the broader constitutional questions surrounding the Chief Justice’s decision.

Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, presiding as a solo judge, thus dismissed the interlocutory injunction application on Friday, August 21, 2026.

The substantive challenge to the constitutionality of the Chief Justice’s warrants will therefore proceed separately from the unsuccessful application for interlocutory relief.

The Supreme Court’s dismissal means the warrant remains in operation while the substantive constitutional challenge proceeds; affected courts can continue sitting under administrative warrants issued by the Chief Justice.

DISCLAIMER: Independentghana.com will not be liable for any inaccuracies contained in this article. The views expressed in the article are solely those of the author and do not reflect those of The Independent Ghana