Accra (Greater Accra)
29 May 2002 - The Supreme Court has dismissed an application by Mr Tsatsu
Tsikata, former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Company,
challenging the legal authority of the Chief Justice to empanel 11 judges to
hear the review of the constitutionality of the Fast Track High Court.
In a unanimous
decision, the five-member court, presided over by Mr Justice A. K. B. Ampiah,
described the action as unmeritorious and uncalled-for and awarded a cost of ˘5
million against the plaintiff.
Other members of the
panel were Mr Justice George Acquah, Mr Justice William Atugubah, Ms Justice
Sophia Akufo and Mr Justice George Lamptey. Mr Tsikata, who was arraigned
before the Fast Track High Court for allegedly causing financial loss to the
state, filed a writ at the Supreme Court challenging the legality of the court
and won the case by a five-four majority decision in March, this year.
In his case against
the Chief Justice, Mr Tsikata had argued that in view of the clear interest
shown by the defendant that his dissenting view in the suit should become the
majority view upon review, the empanelling of two additional justices would be
a way of increasing the chances of reversal of the majority decision and would
be a violation of Article 296 (a) and (b) of the Constitution.
He, therefore, sought
an interpretation and enforcement of Article 133 (2) of the 1992 Constitution
to the effect that there is no constitutional requirement for the panel of 11
justices of the Supreme Court to hear a review of a decision by a panel of nine
judges.
He also contended
that the same constitutional clause states that except in the case of a
decision by a panel of five judges of the Supreme Court, there was no
requirement for the Chief Justice to include two additional judges to hear an
application for a review of its decisions.
According to Mr
Tsikata, the January 10, 2001 practice direction of the former Chief Justice
being used as a reference point should be declared null and void and contrary
to Article 128 (2) of the 1992 Constitution. The plaintiff claimed that on a
true and correct interpretation of Article 128 (2) and Article 133 (2) of the
1992 Constitution, there is no ordinary bench nor is there a full bench of the
Supreme Court as exists under the 1992 Constitution and the 1971 Court Act (Act
372).
He said at the time
the application for review was filed, the number of judges of the Supreme Court
was in conformity with Article 128 (10) of the Constitution which deals with
the composition of the Supreme Court. Regarding the appointment of Mr Justice
Kwame Afreh to the Supreme Court, Mr Tsikata argued that there was no
requirement either in the Constitution or judicial practice that the Chief
Justice should empanel a large bench other than the nine members who heard the
original case.
According to the
plaintiff, the appointment of Mr Justice Afreh does not confer on him any
constitutional right to sit, where practicable and especially in constitutional
cases as the application of the practice direction would necessitate nor is it
necessary for him to sit on the review of the case.
He, therefore, called
for a direction by the Supreme Court that the discretionary powers vested in
the Chief Justice under Article 125 (4) of the Constitution should be exercised
in accordance with Article 296 (a) of the Constitution and not on the basis of
erroneous interpretation of the Constitution.
The Attorney General
and Minister of Justice, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo, who was joined in the
action represented the defendants. With him were his deputy, Ms Gloria Akuffo,
the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Osafo Sampong, and Mr S. Y. Anim, a
Chief State Attorney. Mr Tsikata was represented by Professor E. V. O. Dankwa
and Major R. S. Agbenoto (rtd), both Accra legal practitioners. – Daily Graphic
Send your comments to
viewpoint@ghanareview.com
Accra (Greater Accra)
29 May 2002 - The Supreme Court will on June 26, this year, deliver its
judgement in the case in which the Attorney-General has called for a review of
its earlier decision that the Fast Track High Court is unconstitutional.
The court, presided
over by the Chief Justice, Mr Justice E. K. Wiredu, fixed the date yesterday
after granting an extension of time at the instance of the Attorney General to
enable counsel for Mr Tsikata to file his statement of case in reply to that of
the Attorney-General. The court gave counsel up to seven days during which to
file the statement.
Other members of the
11-member panel are Mrs Justice Joyce Bamford-Addo, Mr Justice A. K. B. Ampiah,
Mr Justice F. Y. Kpegah, Mr Justice E. D. K. Adjabeng and Mr Justice William
Atugubah.
The rest are Mr
Justice George Acquah, Ms Justice Sophia Akufo, Mr Justice George Lamptey, Mr
Justice T. K. Adzoe and Mr Justice Kwame Afreh. The Supreme Court, by a 5-4
majority decision on February 28, this year declared the Fast Track High Court
unconstitutional.
The court, presided
over by the Chief Justice, Mr Justice E. K. Wiredu, arrived at the decision in
its judgement in the case in which Mr Tsatsu Tsikata challenged the
constitutionality of the Fast Track High Court. The judges who upheld Tsatsu’s
application were Mrs Justice Joyce Bamford-Addo, Mr Justice A. K. B. Ampiah, Mr
Justice Francis Kpegah, Mr Justice E. D. K. Adjabeng and Mr Justice T. K.
Adzoe.
Those who dissented
were Mr Justice Wiredu, Mr Justice George Acquah, Mr Justice William Atugubah
and Ms Justice Sophia Akufo. In their reasons, which were given on March 20,
the majority side declared the Fast Track High Court as alien to the
Constitution. According to them, the Fast Track High Court is clearly different
from the ordinary High Court.
They said nowhere in
the Constitution is power conferred on the Chief Justice to create divisions of
the High Court. In their dissenting reasons, the four judges described the
arguments of Mr Tsikata as fallacious, porous and legally untenable.
They averred that the
establishment of the Fast Track High Court by the Chief Justice did not
infringe any provision of the Constitution. According to them, Article 139 (3)
of the Constitution empowers the Chief Justice to establish divisions of the
High Court without reference to Parliament or any legislation. – Daily Graphic
Send your comments to
viewpoint@ghanareview.com
Accra (Greater Accra) 28 May 2002 - Mr Tsatsu Tsikata lost his application against the Chief Justice empanelling additional judges to the review.....by a unananimous decision of five supreme court judges, chaired by Mr Justice Justice Ampiah. Costs have been awarded against him.
The reasons aren't yet available.
GRi…/
Send your comments to viewpoint@ghanareview.com
Tsikata vrs Attorney General reasons for judgement
Attorney General loses against Tsikata