ghananlpcommunity/ghana-gov-speeches-sentences huggingface dataset:
INJUNCTION APPLICATIONS AND ITS EFFECT ON THE LAW-MAKING PROCESS Honorable Members, this House has been duly served with two injunction applications in respect of the Bill.
The applications titled Richard Sky v The Parliament of Ghana & the Attorney-General, and Dr.
Amanda Odoi v The Speaker of Parliament & the Attorney General.
Honorable Members would recall that on 19 July 2023, the Supreme Court considered and dismissed an application for interlocutory injunction that sought to injunct the proceedings of Parliament in respect of the Bill.
The Court in that case, Dr.
Amanda Odoi v the Speaker of Parliament & the Attorney General (J1/13/2023) reasoned that the application failed to meet the threshold for the grant of interlocutory injunctions.
The Executive Secretary to the President, noted in his letter that “it is settled law that during the pendency of an interlocutory injunction application, the status quo ante ought to be preserved, and no action be taken that would result in prejudicing the injunctive relief sought and undermining the authority of the court”.
Honorable Members, an injunction is a judicial order that restrains a person from beginning or continuing an action that threatens or breaches the legal right of another, or that compels a person to carry out a certain act, such as correcting a wrongful state of affairs.
In the context of our law, interlocutory injunctions serve as an important tool for maintaining the status quo pending the resolution of a legal dispute, ensuring that the parties involved do not engage in actions that could cause irreparable harm or fundamentally alter the situation before the court has an opportunity to decide the case.
The only grounds for the grant of an injunction in law is “… in all cases in which it appears to the Court to be just and convenient to do so…”.
The Executive Secretary to the President's reference to the preservation of the status quo ante during the pendency of an interlocutory injunction application is a highlight of the fundamental principle intended to prevent any action that might prejudice the injunctive relief sought or undermine the authority of the court.
However, the interpretation of this principle has given rise to two distinct schools of thought regarding the effect of an application for an injunction.
The two schools of thought concerning the effect of an application for an injunction during its pendency, particularly in the absence of a clear authoritative position from the Supreme Court, offer contrasting views on how parties should conduct themselves.
Each perspective carries significant implications for the administration of justice, the rights of the parties involved, and the overall legal process.
One school argues that the mere application for an injunction should act as a de facto 'injunction,' compelling parties to refrain from taking any further actions that could affect the matter at hand.
This view is predicated on the notion that, to ensure the administration of justice is not interfered with, parties should err on the side of caution and halt any actions that could potentially influence the outcome of the dispute or render the court's eventual decision ineffectual.
Conversely, the other school of thought maintains that an application for an injunction does not, in itself, constitute a court order.
Accordingly, parties are not legally obligated to cease their activities merely because an injunction application has been filed.
Proponents of this perspective argue that until the court issues a formal injunction, the parties retain their rights to proceed as they see fit, provided they do not engage in unlawful conduct or actions explicitly prohibited by law.
In the context of Ghana's constitutional and legislative framework, the debate over the effect of an application for an injunction, particularly when such an application targets legislative processes, warrants careful consideration.
Given the clear constitutional and statutory provisions outlining the President's obligations and powers after a bill has been passed by Parliament, adopting the stance that an application for an injunction acts as a de facto injunction presents several challenges and potential pitfalls.
The Constitution, specifically in Article 106(7) and 106(8), along with relevant statutory provisions, delineates a precise procedure for the passage, transmission, and assent or refusal of bills.
These procedures are designed to ensure a smooth operation of the legislative process, providing checks and balances between the branches of government while safeguarding against undue delay or obstruction in the enactment of laws.
Adopting the de facto injunction perspective, wherein the mere filing of an injunction application is seen to necessitate a halt in the legislative process, runs the risk of unduly fettering the work of Parliament.
Such a stance could enable parties to strategically file injunction applications, not necessarily on the strength of their legal position, but as a tactic to delay or complicate proceedings of this House.
This approach risks transforming the legal system into a tool for political maneuvering rather than a mechanism for justice, effectively crippling Parliament's ability to function and bringing legislative processes to a standstill.
In considering the implications of applying for an injunction against the legislative process, particularly in relation to the transmission of a bill to the President for assent, the concept of irreparable harm must be examined.
This concept, an important consideration for granting injunctions, requires that it is demonstrated to a sufficient degree that the harm which would occur in the absence of an injunction is both significant and incapable of being adequately remedied through damages.
In the specific context of transmitting a bill for presidential assent, it's imperative to understand that this step in the legislative process does not inherently lead to irreparable harm.
The act of transmission merely represents the procedural progression of a bill within the structured framework established by the Constitution.
It does not, in and of itself, guarantee the bill's enactment into law, as the President is accorded the authority, as clearly outlined in the Constitution, to either assent to the bill or refuse it under Articles 106(7) and 106(8).
Additionally, in the event that a bill is assented to by the President and becomes law, the Constitution provides a mechanism for judicial review.
Articles 2(1) and 130 empower the Supreme Court to scrutinize the constitutionality of any Act of Parliament.
Should the Court find that the law is unconstitutional, it possesses the authority to invalidate the Act.
Given these considerations, it is evident that the transmission of a bill to the President for assent, does not result in irreparable harm that would justify the granting of an injunction much less the halting of parliamentary processes on account of the application for an injunction.
Generally, the Supreme court has upheld the position of the law that the official acts by Organs of the State and Government Departments are presumed to be regularly performed unless there is strong evidence in rebuttal.
Arising out of this, it is imperative to note that the Courts have been very reluctant in injuncting and placing impediments on arms of government and constitutional bodies from performing their constitutionally mandated duties.
The Supreme Court has always resisted attempts to unfairly and unnecessarily place a clog on the work of this House through the use of injunction applications.
In Welford Quarcoo v the Attorney General, the Supreme Court per Dr.
Date-Bah JSC noted that: Where the relief sought relates, as here, to a public law matter, particular care must be taken not to halt action presumptively for the public good, unless there are very cogent reasons to do so, and provided also that any subsequent nullification of the impugned act or omission cannot restore the status quo.
Given the reliefs that the plaintiff is seeking in the substantive suit in this case, it is clear that if he succeeds in securing the declarations he has claimed, the impugned provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462) will be declared void and any actions made in pursuance of them nullified.
Accordingly, no irreparable damage will have been caused the plaintiff during the period between the issue of the writ and the date of judgment.
Amanda Odoi v the Speaker of Parliament & the Attorney General (J1/13/2023) the court refused to grant the injunction application because no prima facie case had been made to restrain the work of Parliament and further the applicant was unable to prove irreparable damage should the work of Parliament continue in respect of the Bill.
The Court's cautious approach in dealing with injunction applications against parliamentary processes further underscores the importance of not hastily impeding the legislative functions of Parliament.
The precedents as I have just set out, shows that courts have been slow to grant injunctions that would halt the work of Parliament, recognizing the profound implications such actions could have on the legislative autonomy and the balance of powers within the government.
This judicial reticence is rooted in a recognition of the fundamental principles underpinning a democratic society, where each branch of government, operates within its own sphere of influence, with specific duties and powers that are designed to complement each other, ensuring a robust system of checks and balances.
The courts, in exercising their discretion in matters of injunctions against Parliament, demonstrate a careful consideration of these principles, opting to intervene only when absolutely necessary and when the legal thresholds for such intervention are unequivocally met.
The implications of allowing injunction applications to unduly influence or halt the legislative process are profound.
It undermines the constitutionally outlined procedures and also poses a significant threat to the functioning of democracy.
Such a perspective could stultify not only the work of Parliament but also that of other arms of government or statutory agencies, based merely on the potential for an injunction.
This approach, therefore, is legally unfounded given the clear constitutional mandates and potentially dangerous, as it could serve to undermine the principles of separation of powers and the efficient functioning of government.
CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS Honourable Members, several critical points emerge that underscore the importance of adhering to constitutional and legal frameworks within our democratic governance.
Firstly, the President's refusal to accept the transmission of the bill is, by all accounts, not supported by the constitutional and statutory provisions that guide our legislative process.
The Constitution clearly delineates the steps to be followed once a bill has been passed by Parliament, mandating the transmission of the bill to the President for assent or rejection.
Therefore, the refusal to even accept the bill for consideration falls outside the legal bounds established by our constitutional framework.
It is incumbent upon the President to accept the bill and take the necessary action within the prescribed constitutional limits, whether that action is assent, refusal, or referral to the Council of State for advice.
It is instructive to note that the Executive, has in the past proceeded with its actions, although, there has been pending before the court, injunction application against the State.
Secondly, there must be a steadfast rejection of any attempts to unduly fetter or hinder the work of Parliament.
The Parliament of Ghana operates as a crucial part of our democracy, embodying the will and voice of the people.
Any efforts to obstruct its work disrespects this fundamental institution and threatens the principles of governance by consent and representation.
Thirdly, it is imperative to remain vigilant against setting dangerous precedents that could potentially undermine the foundation of our democracy.
The rejection of a bill's transmission without constitutional basis introduces a precarious deviation from established democratic practices and norms.
Such actions, if left unchallenged, may embolden future attempts to circumvent the legislative process, thereby weakening the integrity and efficacy of our democratic institutions.
Lastly, in alignment with our constitutional mandates and the principles of good governance, it is essential for the President to adhere to the lawful course of action by accepting the transmission of the bill.
Upon receipt, the President has the constitutionally provided options to assent to the bill, refuse it, or seek further consultation, as deemed necessary.
As we move forward, it is the collective responsibility of all branches of government, and indeed all citizens, to uphold the constitution and ensure that our democratic practices are not only preserved but strengthened.
The current impasse presents an opportunity for reflection and reaffirmation of our commitment to the principles of democracy, rule of law, and the unequivocal respect for the legislative process that forms the bedrock of our nation's governance.
I reiterate that the refusal to even accept the bill for consideration falls outside the legal bounds established by our constitutional framework.
Article 106(7) says “Where a bill passed by Parliament is presented to the President for assent, he shall signify within seven days after the presentation, to the Speaker that he assets to the bill or that he refuses to assent to bill, unless the bill has been referred by the President to the Council of State under article 90 of this Constitution.”
The Parliament of Ghana will comply with the existing legal framework and reject the attempts by the Executive Secretary of the President, through his contemptuous letter, to instruct the Clerk to Parliament, an Officer of Parliament whose position is recognizably under the Constitution.
We shall not cease and desist!
Be that as it may, Hon Members, I also bring to your attention, the receipt of a process from the Courts titled Rockson-Nelson Etse K. Dafeamekpor vrs the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney-General ( Suit no.
J1/12/2024) which process was served on the 19th of March 2024 and an injunction motion on notice seeking to restrain the Speaker from proceeding with the vetting and approval of the names of the persons submitted by His Excellency the President until the provisions of the constitution are satisfied.
Members in the light of this process, the House is unable to continue to consider the nominations of His Excellency the President in the “spirit of upholding the rule of law “ until after the determination of the application for interlocutory injunction by the Supreme Court.
Members, I thank you for your attention.
On Thursday, November 12, 2020, the news of the death of President Jerry John Rawlings broke around mid-morning sending our nation into a state of shock and disbelief.
The more the news spread, the reality of the loss dawned not only on us as a family, but also on every one of the millions across the world who admired him for his convictions which he stoutly defended till his last day.
It has been a difficult twelve months having to live with the knowledge that he is physically not here with us, but as Psalm 46:1 says, “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.”
The Lord has been there for us and for all those who in diverse ways lost a loved one.
Flt Lt Jerry John Rawlings was however a man who one cannot forget easily.
His loving and charismatic demeanour struck everyone he met and for mum and us every passing day brings new memories of who he was – larger than life but still a simple personality with so much warmth and compassion.
As a young father, your love and care knew no bounds.
To quote from mum’s tribute to you: “You took pride in your fatherly duties.
There was no task too tiresome and bothersome for you, as you sought to take care of your young family.”
You struck a chord with the ordinary people of this country and could not fathom why a small group of the privileged class had taken over Ghana and consistently mismanaged it.
You and like-minded colleagues believed some action had to be taken.
Probity and accountability were not just popular words associated with Jerry John Rawlings.
You did everything you could when you were the leader of this country to live that ideal and convince all Ghanaians to follow suit.
The journey of combating corruption has been a complex journey for Ghana but while you lived, you never stopped championing that cause.
We are still far from where you wanted your beloved Ghana to be but your ideals and what you stood for, will also haunt those who choose to cut corners to achieve undeserved riches.
This applies to politicians and non-politicians alike.
Your environmental credentials always preceded whatever you did.
We recall some of our local trips where you stopped a convoy and together with your security detail extinguished a raging bushfire before proceeding with the journey.
This is not a tribute daddy, but how does one speak about Jerry John Rawlings, J.J without remembering all these about you?
Your loss was a loss to the whole country and the pain was one felt by most Ghanaians.
Nevertheless, we take this opportunity to thank all well-meaning Ghanaians for the outpour of love and support when we lost our dear husband and father.
The international community’s pouring of condolence was also very moving - all these a reminder of how many lives Jerry Rawlings had impacted.
It was indeed touching that many from across the length and breadth of Ghana, expressed their sympathies and offered us a shoulder to lean on.
In you, we sought and continue to seek our consolation.
As many of you join us here today, we join you in sending our best love to President Jerry John Rawlings.
May his dear soul rest in eternal peace.
Speaker, I come before this House to provide an update on the substantial progress we have made in restoring macroeconomic stability and debt sustainability ahead of the original timeline.
This address will also announce a new chapter in Ghana’s engagement with the International Monetary Fund.
Speaker, this is a consequential moment in President Mahama’s Reset Agenda and, indeed, in the life of our Nation.
It signifies Ghana’s passage from crisis management to stability, from dependence on financial bailout to partnership in reform, and from uncertainty to renewed confidence in our economic future.
Speaker, to appreciate the significance of this moment, we must briefly recall the gravity of the crisis Ghana faced in 2022.
On 1st July 2022, the previous administration turned to the IMF for a financial bailout after their gross mismanagement of the economy had driven the country into fiscal, balance of payments and debt crises.
President Mahama, the then NDC flag bearer, acknowledged the decision as necessary, though a belated intervention to arrest the decline and to ease the severe hardship being borne by the Ghanaian people through no fault of theirs.
The scale of that crises was profound, if not traumatic: • The cedi came under intense pressure; • inflation rose to painful levels, investor confidence deteriorated sharply; • external reserves were strained; and • Ghana lost access to the international capital market.
As a result, credit rating agencies responded by downgrading Ghana’s sovereign rating, repeatedly, in 2022, to levels never seen in our country’s history: • In February that year (2022), Moody’s downgraded Ghana to Caa1.
• In August, S&P downgraded Ghana to CCC+.
• Again, in August, Fitch downgraded Ghana to CCC.
• And in September, Fitch again, downgraded Ghana to CC.
• Finally, in October 2022, Ghana lost access to the international capital market with Ghana’s Eurobond spreads widening to an all-time high of 3400 basis point.
This further deepened the economic and financial crises, to the point that COCOBOD was unable to secure a syndicated loan for the first time in many years.
Also, some domestic commercial banks could no longer obtain external funding or establish letters of credit, as international banks declined to confirm those instruments.
Speaker, on 5th December 2022, following the announcement that Ghana could not meet its maturing domestic debt obligations, the NPP administration introduced the Domestic Debt Exchange Programme (DDEP), imposing significant haircuts on domestic bondholders.
On 13th December 2022, Ghana formally requested debt treatment under the G20 Common Framework in order to restructure its bilateral debt portfolio of more than US$5 billion.
On 19th December 2022, the NPP administration again defaulted on the servicing of Ghana’s external commercial debt obligations.
The far-reaching haircuts affected: • The Bank of Ghana; • commercial banks; • non-bank financial institutions; • pension funds; • insurance companies; • individual bondholders; and • even pensioners were not spared.
Speaker, ordinary Ghanaians bore the heaviest burden of that crisis.
The consequences were felt across households, businesses, and institutions through: • rapid depreciation of the cedi; • runaway inflation of more than 50 percent; • massive erosion of disposable incomes and savings; • painful haircuts on domestic bondholders, including pensioners; • punitive interest rates that constrained private sector activity; • the imposition of nuisance taxes including E-Levy, Betting Tax, COVID-19 Levy and Emissions Tax; • job losses, business distress, and weakened investor confidence; and • a sharp rise in poverty and economic insecurity.
Speaker, in the midst of all these hardships imposed on the Ghanaian people, the government of the day remained bloated, purposefully inefficient, and riddled with waste and corruption.
By December 2024, those responsible proceeded to undermine the very IMF programme they themselves had signed to correct the economic mess they imposed on Ghana, missing targets and commitments under the programme.
That was the depth of the crisis we inherited.
Speaker, it is important to recount this not to dwell on the past, but to remind ourselves of the heavy price of fiscal indiscipline and economic recklessness, and to affirm our collective resolve that Ghana must never return to that path.
Speaker, some painful experiences cannot be taught.
They must be lived to be understood.
But once experienced, never again should they be repeated.
Never again!!!
Speaker, upon assuming office, President Mahama’s administration moved with clarity and purpose to reset the Ghanaian economy and bring the IMF-supported programme back on track.
We recalibrated the IMF Programme to ensure fairer burden-sharing, and deeper structural reform.
Among the principal measures we undertook were the following: • We introduced the Public Financial Management (PFM) commitment authorization to control government expenditure; • We audited government arrears and payables to eliminate recycled IPCs and overpayments; • We stopped the misuse of the tax refund account to finance schemes such as SML; • We amended the PFM Act to institutionalize a 1.5% of GDP primary surplus and 45% debt-to-GDP by 2034; • We introduced the GOLDBOD to enhance FX stability and reserve accumulation; • We operationalized the Sinking Fund with dedicated Cedi and US Dollar buffers to manage future debt maturities; • We removed nuisance taxes such as E-Levy, Betting Tax, Emissions Levy, and VAT on motor insurance to support private sector activity; • We established the Office of Value for Money to improve public expenditure efficiency; • We established the Independent Fiscal Council to check compliance with the fiscal rules; • We concluded IPP renegotiations, saving over US$250 million, and cleared over US$1 billion of legacy arrears in the energy sector; • We reduced ministers of state from 123 (later 88) to 60; and • We reduced government ministries from 30 to 23; and 26.
Speaker, I am pleased to report that these measures have produced clear and measurable results.