The 6-3 conservative majority court decided on Wednesday to hear Mr Trump’s claims that he should be shielded from criminal liability.

The ruling marks the first time the court has weighed in on such a case.

A US Court of Appeals panel has already rejected Mr Trump’s argument that he enjoys presidential immunity.

Mr Trump had claimed in the landmark legal case that he was immune from all criminal charges for acts he said fell within his duties as president.

But the appeals court ruled unanimously against the 77-year-old, writing that: “We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralise the most fundamental check on executive power – the recognition and implementation of election results.”

He appealed the case to the Supreme Court and asked to put that decision on hold.

On his Truth Social site, Mr Trump welcomed Wednesday’s decision and contended that without immunity “Presidents will always be concerned, and even paralyzed, by the prospect of wrongful prosecution and retaliation after they leave office”.

“This could actually lead to the extortion and blackmail of a President,” he wrote.

Mr Trump was charged last year with witness tampering and conspiracy to defraud the US in federal court in Washington DC over his attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden.

Jack Smith, who was appointed as special counsel in the investigation, brought the charges against Mr Trump, and pushed for the trial to be held this year.

The court could have let the appellate court judgement stand, which would have allowed the trial proceedings to resume.

Instead, a minimum of four of the nine justices voted to take up the case. That suggests that there is some debate within the court on whether Mr Trump has some immunity from prosecution.

The decision has the potential to seriously delay the trial, which was originally scheduled for March.

Arguments in the Supreme Court case are scheduled for the week of 22 April, and any trial will have to wait until after a decision is made.

Although a decision could come swiftly, the justices could rule that the former president is immune from prosecution, or issue a decision that further delays legal action.

Justice Department guidelines limit prosecutorial action in politically sensitive investigations from within 60 days of an election – meaning prosecutors face a deadline of early September.

And if Mr Trump wins in November, there is a growing possibility that the case never reaches trial. His Justice Department officials could drop or indefinitely suspend the special counsel investigation or he could take the unprecedented step of issuing a pardon for himself.

The Republican front-runner candidate for president is facing a host of other federal and state criminal charges.

The former president is facing a trial starting in late March on charges of falsifying business records over hush-money payment he made to a porn star.

The Supreme Court is also hearing arguments in a separate case weighing whether Mr Trump can be disqualified from running for a second term under the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection ban.”

Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty in all the cases, frequently referring to them as political “witch hunts”.

Justice Afia Serwah Asare Botwe stressed, the rules of her court are entirely within her discretion and shall not be dictated by an MP’s privileges.

She quoted Justice Adinyira in the Ex-Parte Francis case of “conducting the business of the court as though it is secondary to that of counsel or anyone else for that matter, within the confines of the proper exercise of judicial discretion.”

The Judge and the Speaker have been engaged in letter-writing exchanges since the MP abandoned Parliament to attend to a criminal case against him.

ALSO: Audio: If you can’t complete simple library for Mills; how can you rule Ghana? – Mahama jabbed

Mahama Ayariga had earlier engaged in letter writing himself insisting, he won’t appear before the court – a stance which was reversed as the judge gave him a 1pm deadline to show up in her court.

The Speaker of Parliament, Prof. Mike Oquaye, sent his certificate, ruling that at that time the Member had not been served a criminal summons from the court.

He asked that the scheduling of Mahama Ayariga’s trial be done without conflicting his Parliamentary duties.

He pointed to several provisions in the 1992 constitution, Article 117, 118 and 122, which all border on privileges and Contempt of Parliament, to make his case.

But the judge remained unmoved. She ruled on the Speaker’s seven-page letter that the bedrock of Prof. Mike Oquaye’s argument, Article 118, does not apply to the accused Mahama Ayariga.

ALSO: Court gives Amidu green light to prosecute Ayariga

That Article says “neither the Speaker, nor a member of, nor the Clerk to, Parliament shall be compelled, while attending Parliament to appear as a witness in any court or place out of Parliament.”

Undeterred, the Speaker of Parliament wrote again essentially rehashing his earlier argument, a style largely adopted by the judge in her second reply.

She only added that the court will ensure a speedy trial like it does for every other person.

Read Judge’s second response

I shall conclude this ruling by making a comment on a letter addressed to the registrar for the court authored by the Rt. Honourable Speaker of Parliament on the availability of A1 (Mahama Ayariga) to stand trial. I shall not go into any great detail regarding this letter save to say that the concerns therein contained are very well noted.

However, in the ruling of this court dated 4th June, 2019, in the case of the Republic v Hajia Ninchema and 6 ORS this court made a pronouncement on whether or not the speaker’s certificate issued on 4th of June 2019 would be binding on this court given the fact that the 1st accused is not being compelled to appear as a witness but as an accused person. Those remarks still hold valid as there is no such need perceived, save to state that in considering how this case will be managed and the trial conducted going forward, the following will be the guiding principles;

A. An accused person has the right to a speedy trial.

ALSO: Find out why Achimota Basic School head fears her pupils could be kidnapped

“… while appreciating the very important duty these most respected lawyers are engaged in as legislators, that there will be no situation, to borrow the words of Justice Adinyira in the Ex-Parte Francis case of “conducting the business of the court as though it is secondary to that of counsel or anyone else for that matter, within the confines of the proper exercise of judicial discretion The court will *be sure to deliver on its mandate to preside over this trial (like all others before it) in a fashion that would terminate it timeously.

B. … Adjournments are largely within the discretion of the court and applications should be considered with the primary objective of ensuring a speedy hearing and determination, presiding judge has to have control over his court

Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe (MRS)

Justice of the High Court

Source: Myjoyonline.com