Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, particularly its provisions regarding the separation of powers of government, is undergoing a real test under the current Decree.
On several occasions, the three branches of government–the executive, judicial, and legislative branches–have “butted heads” on issues of governance, with each branch exercising the powers given to it by the Constitution.
The “battles” between the judiciary and the legislature are particularly interesting, with Congress often being on the receiving end.
National Assembly Speaker Alban Bagbin has repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with Ghana’s Supreme Court’s rulings outlawing some of Parliament’s decisions.
Reflecting certain aspects of this ‘battle’, Ghanaweb highlights four cases where the Supreme Court declared decisions by Parliament unconstitutional.
First and second wives are not entitled to ex-gratia payments or ministerial salaries – Supreme Court Rules
The latest judgment by the Supreme Court that ruled Parliament’s decision illegal means that the spouses, first and second wives, of the President of Ghana and his Vice-President are entitled to benefits under Article 71, including quid pro quo. The court declared that there was no such thing. advantage.
The judgment of the country’s highest court challenges the recommendations approved by parliament led by Professor Yaa Ntiamoah Baidu on the remuneration of Section 71 executives who are the spouses of President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo and Vice President Dr. Mahamudu. It concerned a lawsuit filed. Mr Bawumia should receive the same monthly salary as his ministers.
The seven-member Supreme Court is chaired by Chief Justice Gertrude Torcornou and consists of Justice Gabriel Powaman, Justice Lovelace Johnson, Justice Henrietta Mensa-Bons, Justice Barbara Acker Jens, Justice Ernest Gau, and Justice Samuel Asiedu. collegial body. The members issued rulings in two separate cases contesting the payment of salaries approved to the First and Second Ladies.
South Dai MP, Rockson Nelson Dafairmekpol; Birsa South MP, Dr Clement Apak; In one case, a private citizen, Ny Tuckey Comey, sued the Attorney General, asking him to cancel payments to his first and second wives.
In a separate lawsuit, the Bono regional chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Kwame Baffoe, popularly known as Abronye DC, also filed a similar lawsuit against the state.
The Supreme Court strikes down the following provisions of the Companies Act, 2019:
On 8 November 2023, the Supreme Court held section 13(2)(h)(i) and (ii) of the Companies Act 2019 (Act 992) inconsistent with section 19(2)(c). canceled as. of the 1992 Constitution.
According to dennislaw.com, this is a judgment in a constitutional matter filed by lawyer Derrick Adu Gyamfi, who asked the Supreme Court to, among other things, strike out and strike out sub-provisions of the Companies Law, 2019 (Act No. 992). , I prayed that it be canceled.
The applicant has addressed these subsections. Sections 2(h)(I), 2(h)(ii), 2(a)(i), I(c), etc. of Article 13, Article 172, and Article 177 of the Act are unconstitutional and unjust. violates the principle of Especially hearing.
The Supreme Court has eliminated aspects of Congress’ standing orders.
In March 2022, the Supreme Court of the land ruled that the Standing Order of Parliament, Order 109(3), states that the Deputy Speaker or any other member serving as Speaker shall not hold the original vote while in office. Aspects were undone.
The court also held that the passage of the 2022 budget statement was unconstitutional because Joseph Osei Owusu, the First Vice-Speaker of the National Assembly, was counted as part of the quorum required to pass the budget while in office. The court dismissed the application and rendered judgment on the case. .
The application was filed by Justice Abdullahi, a private lawyer and law lecturer, after the First Deputy Speaker’s actions helped the government reach the numbers to pass the 2022 budget.
He argued that in the context of Articles 102 and 104 of the 1992 Constitution, the Vice-Chairman was not allowed to count himself for quorum purposes because he had neither the original vote nor the casting vote as Speaker.
However, a seven-judge panel of the Supreme Court ruled that Bekwai MP Osei Owusu has constitutional rights because he is a representative of his constituents.
Supreme Court strikes down part of “boring law”
In July 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision that section 43 of the Narcotics Control Commission Act, 2020 (Act 1019) is a violation of section 106 of the 1992 Constitution, which details the process that must be followed before the bill becomes law. The court ruled that it was in violation of. It was passed as a law by Congress and was therefore invalid.
In other words, the court invalidates provisions of the Narcotics Control Board Act, 2020, which allows licenses to be granted to entities to grow small quantities of cannabis, commonly referred to as ‘wee’, for industrial and medical use in Ghana. The verdict was given. The purpose is unconstitutional.
“The plaintiff’s case succeeds. Therefore, section 43 of the Narcotics Control Board Act 2020 (Act 1019) is declared null and void, and the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution, in particular section 106(2)(a), is declared null and void. “b), (5), and (6),” the court held.
The case, which culminated in a judgment, was filed against the Attorney General by a man named Ezuame Mannan.
The justices for the majority were Justice Jones Dotse, Justice Clemens Jackson Honyenuga, Justice Henrietta Mensa Bonsu, and Justice Emmanuel Yoni Krendi.
Justice Nene Amegatcha, Professor Nii Ashie Kotei and Justice Isif Omolo Tanko Amadou dissented.
The court explained that in an explanatory memorandum attached to the proposed bill, the House of Representatives did not spell out policy changes, deficiencies in the current law, and the need to introduce legislation to allow cannabis cultivation.
“The manner in which Section 43 of Act 1019 was introduced violates the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Section 43 is therefore struck down as unconstitutional.
“The lack of discussion regarding Article 43 of Act 1019 not only directly violates the letter of Article 106 of the Constitution, but also the spirit of the law.
“There was clearly no discussion of such a significant policy change by Congress. Needless to say, this action and the manner in which the law was enacted undermines the transparency and accountability that the Constitution imposes,” the court wrote. The statement was reported by graphic.com.
Buy/AE
Watch the latest episode of Everyday People on GhanaWeb TV below.
Ghana Web, Ghana’s leading digital news platform, collaborates with Korlebu Teaching Hospital to ensure Parliament passes comprehensive legislation to guide organ harvest, donation and transplantation in the country We are embarking on an aggressive campaign.