[2000]DLSC486 • May 10, 2000 • Supreme Court •
SAM vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL (No 2)
The plaintiff, a Ghanaian citizen and legal practitioner, invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court seeking a declaration that section 15 of the Divestiture of State Interests Implementation Law, 1993 (PNDCL 326) is inconsistent with Articles 140(1) and 293(2) and (3) of the 1992 Constitution and thus null and void. Section 15 grants immunity to the State and its officers from court proceedings related to acts or omissions arising from disposal of State interests under the law. The Attorney-General raised a preliminary objection on the plaintiff's standing, arguing no personal interest or dispute existed to warrant the suit.
read moreThe plaintiff issued a writ to invoke the original jurisdiction of this court, seeking the interpretation of the Constitution, 1992 and a declaration that: “Section 15 or the Divestiture of State Interests (Implementation) Law, 1992 (PNDCL 326), is inconsistent with or in contravention of the provisions of articles 140(1) and 293(2) and (3) of the Constitution, 1992, and to that extent, it is null and void” Preliminary objection The Attorney-General, the defendant, raised a preliminary objection to this action on the ground that the plaintiff has no standing to bring the suit since he has no personal interest in the outcome of the case. He asked that the plaintiff’s writ be struck out and dismissed for lack of standing. The defendants’ grounds for the preliminary objection were that: “(a) A controversy or dispute concerning the interpretation of an enactment must have arisen before the said declaration can be sought; and (b) that according to article 2(1) of th...