ghananlpcommunity/ghana-gov-speeches-sentences huggingface dataset:
When it was unheeded, it sued the attorney-general in the supreme court for a declaration in January 1996.
However, it was not until November 1999 that the suit was listed for hearing and judgement was given in favor of the plaintiff on 26 th January, 2000 by which date the then President Rawlings had left office after two presidential terms of office!
This trend has continued in very recent times.
Thus, in Ghana Centre for Democratic Development & 8 others v. Attorney General, as Amegatcher JSC delivering the judgement of the Supreme Court, stated, Judgement was delivered in this case on the 21 st May, 2023.
Long after Mr.
Domelevo had been pushed out of office.
Coincidentally, it was on the same day that the Supreme Court also delivered judgement in the case of Prof.
Kwadwo Appiagyei -Attua & 7 others v. The Attorney-General.
In this case the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the Imposition of Restrictions Act, 2020 (Act 1012) which was enacted in consequence of the deadly Corona Virus (Covid 19) Pandemic It can unhappily be said that the Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally and in bad faith when it inordinately delayed in delivering judgement in the National Media Commission v Attorney-General, as well as the Domelevo and Covid-19 cases for short.
This is because it is the constitutional duty of the Supreme Court to enforce the constitution forthwith when it is breached.
That is the mandatory duty under article 2 (1) of the constitution.
Thus in Gbedemah v Awoonor – Williams 2 G&G 739 (2nd) 1167 at 1175 Azu Crabbe J. A (as he then was) said: The pith of the plaintiff’s claim as expressed in paragraph (8) of his statement of claim is that on 5 September 1969 the defendant took his seat as a Member of the National Assembly, notwithstanding the fact that he was not qualified so to do by virtue of article 71 (2) (b) (ii) and (d) of the Constitution, and that the defendant intends to continue to sit in the said National Assembly.
If the matter rests here, then prima facie there has been an infringement of the Constitution, and an alleged threat to continue such infringement.
This would constitute a mischief, and it would become the inescapable duty of the Supreme Court to suppress it by enforcing the Constitution.”
In the National Media Commission, Domelevo and Covid-19 cases the Supreme Court failed to suppress the mischiefs of the infringements of the Constitution for an inordinate period of time.
The entertainment and determination of the James Gyakye Quayson’s case (Michael Ankomah Nimfah v James Gyakye Quayson and two others) WRT NO J1/11/2022, 17 th May 2023 by the Supreme Court is quite unfortunate though the Court, in my humble view was misled by the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Sumaila Biebel (No.1) v. Dramani and Anoher (2011) 1 SCGLR132.
Even there the Biebel case was not, unlike the Gyakye Quayson case, determined on its merits by the High court and the Court of Appeal.
However, the determinative consideration is that the constitution has clearly assigned post parliamentary election matters to the High court under article 99 and post presidential election matters to the Supreme court.
These provisions are specific whilst the provisions of Articles 2 and 130 are general and therefore verba generalia specialibus non derogant .
This is particularly so since In re parliamentary elections for Wulensi constituency; Zakaria v Nyimakan (2003-2004) 1 SCGLR 1 has decided (though I disagree with it) that post parliamentary election matters end at the Court of Appeal level.
It is so in some other jurisdictions.
Common sense is also a rule of the construction of statutes, therefore since parliamentary elections occur in as many as 275 constituencies in our country, the constitution could not have reasonably contemplated and provided for post parliamentary election matters should be litigated in the centralized Supreme court unlike the singular and unitary post presidential elections.
If it is the consideration that the constitutional breach cannot be left unredressed after the 21 day period for presenting a parliamentary election petition, can it also be argued that after the 21 days period under article 64 (1) of the 1992 constitution, a person can bring an action under articles 2 and 130 of the constitution to invalidate a presidential election?
And except otherwise provided by the constitution under article 130 (which comprehends article 2 also), the jurisdiction of the Supreme court, is exclusive of all other courts, how can the supreme court have concurrent jurisdiction over any matter with another court, which is the implication if the supreme court purports to adjudicate post parliamentary electoral matters alongside the High court?
There are instances in which it may be felt that some members of the judiciary pay allegiance apparently to the executive or otherwise instead of to Ghana.
Despite the clear provisions of article 146, a very knowledgeable chief justice of Ghana wrote on two occasions to a justice of the supreme court terminating his tenure as a supreme court judge on the ground of ill health without complying with the said article 146.
On being shown the letters by the judge concerned I strongly exhorted him to reply them raising the contravention of article 146.
The same chief justice indirectly suspended me for 6 months by not empanelling me on any case immediately after I maintained my solo dissent in Tsatsu Tsikata v. The Republic when it came up for review by the Supreme Court.
Before I curtail this issue, the same Chief Justice sidelined me as the then realistic most senior justice of the Supreme court contrary to article 144 (6) who should act as the Chief Justice in his absence.
I felt that since the Supreme Court is the custodian of the constitution, I could not condone its infractions.
I therefore assumed the functions of the Chief Justice with clearance from the then most senior justice who was then very seriously indisposed and handicapped until I got to know from him very shortly afterwards that he had become fit enough to act as Chief Justice upon the death of the then incumbent Chief Justice.
It is this event which led Kweku Baako, a very prominent journalist, to state on a radio program that in the bid for the post of Chief Justice, I declared myself as the acting Chief Justice, but when the said most senior justice of the supreme court got wind of it, he said “You lie, I can act”.
When I heard that allegation I was gravely hurt since I have never in my life made any move to be appointed the Chief Justice of Ghana because I consider lobbying for a position as a corrupt act since it involves compromising one’s conscience.
CONSTITUTIONALISM IN GHANA These sorts of things do not augur well for constitutionalism in Ghana which it is the primary duty of the courts to ensure.
Our 1992 constitution has ordained constitutionalism for Ghana.
This is plain from particularly articles 1,2, 3 and 35 of the constitution which provide inter alia for the sovereignty and welfare of the people of Ghana, the supremacy and enforcement of the constitution and the blessings of democracy.
Constitutionalism has been well explained by some eminent jurists in Ghana.
In his very able book, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF GHANA: TEXT, CASES AND COMMENTARY, Prof.
E. Kofi Abotsi states at page 32 thus “Constitutionalism as a concept can be defined as the limitation placed on the exercise of legal and political power.
The concept of constitutionalism is peculiarly important for African countries given the long-standing experience of dictatorship, anarchy and misrule on the continent.
As corollaries, constitutionalism and responsible government have been said to be mutually re-enforcing.
Constitutionalism promotes responsible government in the sense that it compels government to act in a manner consistent with the expectations for the conferment of power and respond to feedback from the citizenry.
In this context, one can accept that constitutionalism is a welfare- oriented concept to the extent that it seeks to ultimately champion the welfare of the governed by ensuring that governments exercise conferred powers in the best interest of the governed”.
Also in his thoroughly researched book, THE NEW CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW OF GHANA: FROM THE GARDEN OF EDEN TO 2022, Prof.
Raymond Atuguba states at page 2 as follows: “The mere existence of a constitution is not enough for proper governance.
A constitution can lead to constitutionality or constitutionalism.
Constitutionality is the rule of law at the constitutional level; no matter what the content of the law is that rules.
Constitutionalism on the other hand is good governance or people-centered governance at a constitutional level.
With constitutionalism, there is limited government, people-centeredness, protection of minority and other rights, fairness, justice, equity.
In countries such as the United States which practice constitutionality and not constitutionalism, a constitution exists along side social concerns like racism, gender inequity and the prisons industrial complex.
These are incompatible with the countries that practice constitutionalism”.
See also Prof.
Date- Bah’s very scholarly book; Selected Papers and Lectures on Ghanaian Law page 76.
The appointment of judges particularly of the Supreme Court as the fulcrum of constitutionalism and the Rule of law has its hiccups.
It is the Judicial Council that recommends suitable lawyers or judges for eventual appointment by the President.
Sometimes some judges are recommended by the Judicial council to the Supreme Court over and above more experienced and senior judges even though they are not more competent and experienced than their seniors.
Often when there is regime change, some of the sidelined senior judges now get recommended for appointment to the Supreme Court through the same Judicial Council, but they then become juniors to their earlier juniors by reason of their later appointment.
In practice, however, these later appointed judges often write the unanimous or lead judgements in difficult cases shortly after their appointment to the Supreme Court.
Certainly, eyebrows can be raised over such practices.
What can be the justification for such things?
Nonetheless, depending to some extent on the Judicial season the Judiciary has deepened constitutionalism in Ghana, notably the nullification of the 31 st December holiday celebration funded from public funds, the freedom of choice of independent counsel by state bodies instead of the Attorney-General, despite Article 88(5) where there is conflict of interest, see Amegatcher v Attorney-General (1) [2012] 1SCGLR 679, National Media Commission v Attorney-General, supra.
As stated by Professor Date-Bah in his said book at pp.17-18: “constitutionalism is about having limits to the powers of constitutional bodies and enforcing those limits.
The judiciary, through its exercise of the power of judicial review, is accordingly a vital actor in this process.
The Ghana Supreme court has been quite effective in protecting the legal framework of the liberal multi-party democracy whose grundnorm is the 1992 constitution.
An example here would be appropriate.
To my mind, this case illustrates the contribution of law to the development in Ghana.
At first sight, the case (Ahumah Ocansey v Electoral Commission; Center for Human rights and several liberties v The Attorney -General and the Electoral Commission (2010) SCGLR 575), which was decided by the Ghana Supreme court, would appear to have little to do with law and development.
The main issue raised in the case which in fact consisted of two consolidated cases, was whether prisoners were entitled to vote.
In spite of article 42 of the 1992 constitution, which provides that every citizen of Ghana of 18 years of age or above and of sound mind has the right to vote and is entitled to be registered for the purposes of public elections and referenda, the Attorney -General had argued in this case that it was in the public interest that convicted offenders are punished, kept under lock and key and not allowed to vote.
The Supreme court rejected this contention and held that there was no justification for denying prisoners their unqualified right to vote.
This right was conferred on all adult Ghanaians who are sane by article 42 of the Constitution.
As I said in that case: “nothing in the core values and spirit of the 1992 Constitution justifies the restriction on prisoners’ right to vote, that is advocated by the learned attorney-general.
There is thus no basis for implying the restrictions argued for by the Attorney-General to qualify the clear and unambiguous language of article 42”.
However, it is lamentable as pointed out by Prof.
Raymond Atuguba in his said Sterling book that ‘Notwithstanding the Supreme Court departed from the preposition espoused by Date-Bah, in the Osei Boateng Case, decisions of the Court after that departure still create doubt as to the current legal position.
In some of these subsequent decisions, the Supreme Court seemed to be toeing the line of Date-Bah JSC in the Osei Boateng Case, by declining Jurisdiction to enforce the Constitution on the ground that the constitutional provisions sought to be enforced were clear and unambiguous.
Notable cases are Mayor Agbleze v Attorney General and Asare v Attorney General and General Legal Council.
Some other subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court have followed the reasoning in Noble Kor v Attorney General.
This turn of events creates a cloud of confusion and inconsistency in our jurisprudential space, making it difficult for one to tell the direction of flow of our country’s constitutional law in this area.
This must be a cause of worry to students and practitioners of Constitutional Law.”
REALISTIC INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY I want to emphasize that there is a vast chasm between independence of the judiciary in theory and its independence in practice.
Thus, as explicitly stated by Dr.
Dat-Bah in his aforementioned book at page 90 “Independence of the judiciary has two dimensions: the institutional and the personal.
Personal independence relates to the commitment of individual judges to the judicial values that ensure their impartiality and fairness.
I am here referring to values such as eschewing corruption and not allowing ethnic and other particularistic considerations to affect judicial determinations.
Institutional independence of the judiciary, on the other hand, relates to the constitutional, statutory, and other arrangements put in place to assure the independence of the judiciary.
Issues that are customarily dealt with under institutional independence include: separation of powers; security of tenure for judges, including appropriate provisions on the appointment process of judges, the conditions of service of judges and the process for the removal of superior court judges; financial and administrative autonomy of the judiciary; and measures are what make judicial independence justifiable.
It would be unacceptable to have independent but unaccountable judges.
SUMMARY The James Gyakye Quayson’s decision by the Supreme Court is with all due respect scandalous in that the court, in the teeth of the settled maxim Res Judicata et non quieta movere , re adjudicated the same matter that has been adjudicated upon by the High court on the merits.
All that was left was its execution according to court processes.
Again the stress laid by the court on the statutory processes for acquisition and renunciation of citizenship shot it self in the foot.
If the certificate of renounciation is so mandatory and conclusive why was it not conclusive in its effect to qualify Gyakye Quason when he received it, dated 26 th November 2020, whereas the parliamentary election was held on 7 th December 2020?
Statutes, judgements, and documents must always be applied with consistency both in the letter and spirit.
These must always be construed holistically and as instruments of justice since it is a well settled principle that the duty of a court is to do justice and a court should not be turned away from doing justice.
In the 2013 presidential election petition (2013) SCGLR (Special Edition) 73 at 141 I stated as follows: ‘Again in Osman v Tedam (1970) 2 G & G 1246 (2d) CA and Osman v Kaleo (1970) 2 G&G 1380, the Court of Appeal held that though the respondents were members of the Convention Peoples Party whose constitution made all Members of Parliament of the Convention Peoples Party members of the party’s Regional Executive Committee that did not without more, make the respondents members of such committees and therefore disqualified to contest the 1969 Parliamentary Elections, which they had won.
The decision in Osman v Kaleo is even more striking.
Though the respondent had secured exemption from disqualification from contesting the parliamentary elections, it was submitted that since his exemption had not been published in the Gazzeet, upon which publication it will have effect, under paragraph 3 (5) of NLCD 223, 1968, the same was inoperative, notwithstanding that under paragraph 3(7) of that Decree, the decision of the Exemptions Commission was final and conclusive.
The court of Appeal rejected that contention”.
Again in JUSTICE DERY v TIGER EYE PI AND OTHERS (2015-2016) 2 SCGLR 816, the Supreme Court unanimously held that though the impeachment process against the plaintiff was published in contravention of Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution that could not vitiate the crucial impeachment procedures against him.
In other words the substantial and more important provisions on the removal of a corrupt judge could not be diverted by the incidence of the unconstitutional publication of the impeachment petition.
Similarly, then the certificate of Renunciation dated the 26 th November 2020 was more important than the anterior participation by Gyakye Quayson in the parliamentary campaigns between 5 th and 9 th October 2020 when he filled his parliamentary nomination papers with the electoral commission.
The Supreme Court does not stand in good light, with all due respect in disqualifying Gyakye Quayson despite his clear certificate of Renunciation of his Canadian Citizenship as from 26 th November 2020.
By analogy also, in CLOSSAG v ATTORNEY GENERAL AND 2 OTHERS (2017 -2018) 1SCGLR 210, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a member of the Civil Service or Local Government Service can join a political party but cannot actively participate in politics or hold office as a political party nominee or remain in the Civil Service after election as a member of the District Assembly.
In other words, the operative evil to guard against is membership of the District Assembly not the contest for the same.
Similarly, therefore, the operative evil to guard against about a dual citizen is, as regards parliament, his actual membership of it, not just the campaigns.
That is why in the Gyakye Quayson’s case, his renunciation of Canadian citizenship certificate dated 26 th November 2020 is the operative consideration.
In any case it will be noticed that his certificate of citizenship is tied to an Oath pf allegiance.
The 2 move together, the letter and the spirit.
It is difficult to think that Gyakye Quayson who submitted his Renunciation of Citizenship Papers to Canada in 2019 could still in December 2020 be held as seriously owing allegiance as a matter of hard realism as opposed to formalism, to Canada.
In the King David example I cited in Asare V Attorney General (2012), 1 SCGLR 460, his Israelite citizenship became of real concern to the Philistines when going into actual war with Israel.
CURRENT IMAGE OF THE JUDICIARY IN GHANA The current public image of the Judiciary in Ghana is reflected on Social Media.
For example, GHANAIANS ARE LOSING CONFIDENCE IN THE JUDICIARY SYSTEM by Dr.
Lawrence as published on ghananewsonline.com on the 16 th of October, 2023.
Founder of the Diaspora Progressive Movement in the (USA), Dr.
Lawrence Appiah, has said that Ghanaians are losing confidence and hope in the ability of the Court to administer Justice in the country.
He accused the New Patriotic Party (NPP) government of appointing cronies to the Judiciary.
In a recent interview with ghananewsonline.com.gh, Dr Lawrence claimed that President Nana Addo Danquah has deliberately appointed Judges who are in bed with him in order to skip accountability.
In a statement signed by Dr.
Lawrence and circulated on social media, he said in Ghana, the Judiciary is gradually becoming a thin god, allowing them to pass some outrageous judgements.
He argued that some of the judgements passed by some notable courts in the country leave much to be desired.
In Ghana today, the birth certificate is not a legal document to prove that someone is a Ghanaian.
Meanwhile, the birth certificate is the base document used to prepare a Ghanaian passport which is used to travel the entire world.
He emphasized that the Judiciary is packed with NPP inclined Judges because this government has carried out a deliberate policy of putting their people onto the bench to frustrate Ghanaians.
He further said, it will take a new leader like John Mahama in the next NDC administration to lead the process to repair what he describes as (badly dented image) of Ghana’s judiciary for people to win the trust in the system.
In his opinion, the deteriorated image of the Judiciary easily sparks laughter from the citizenry when one decides to go to the court for justice, adding that it is of the scariest existential threats to any democracy when citizens think their judiciary holds no value for them or no use to them, and this is the security threat that the National Security apparatus tried to draw the attention of the nation to recently but was poorly received by the president.
He added that such lawlessness in the country threatens the peace and stability of Ghana’s democracy and must be quickly corrected (because) if pragmatic measures are not taken, it will get to a stage where people will have no qualms about taking the law into their own hands because they do not have the confidence that they can get any justice in the system.
Lawrence writes: The dangers of our current judiciary During the hearing of Hon.
Gyakye Quayson’s case after the 2020 elections, the lower courts ruled that he was not supposed to go to parliament whiles his case XXX.
The Supreme Court ruled the member of Assin North, Hon.
Gyakye Quayson, after he was elected by his constituents, that not only should he not be able to represent his constituents, they went further to order parliament to strike his name from parliament records as if he never entered parliament.
During the recently ended limited registration exercise by the Electoral Commission, the NDC and some Civil Society Organization filed a motion at the Supreme Court to stop the EC from conducting the exercise.
The Chief Justice came and set a hearing date for October 17, 2023.
Meanwhile, the whole limited registration exercise ended on October 2, 2023.
During the hearing of Hon.
Gyakye Quayson’s case after the 2020 election.
The lower court ruled that he was not supposed to go to parliament whilst his case was ongoing.
At the same time, another lower Courts hearing the case of the MP for Techiman South, ruled that the people of Techiman South need a representative in parliament, so while the case was ongoing, the MP could still represent his people.
The case is now stalled in that court.
This same outrageous court agreed with the Attorney General that after |Hon.
Gyakye Quayson’s had been elected the second time to parliament was to appear in court every day for hearing.
The case has become inactive when the minority in parliament resolved to join their colleague in court.
When the executive needs a reform, the President is changed.
When the legislative needed reform, the Speaker was changed.
When the Judiciary needs a reform, the Chief Justice needs to be changed.
If Nana Addo could remove the Electoral Commissioner, the Auditor General and it was good, so should John Mahama be able to remove the Chief Justice.
We need serious reforms in every institution including the NPP.
This is one of the reasons Ghanaians want him to be President again.