[2002]DLSC1275 • May 18, 2002 • Supreme Court •
TSIKATA vs. CHIEF JUSTICE & ATTORNEY-GENERAL
The plaintiff, Tsatsu Tsikata, challenged the constitutional validity of a Practice Direction issued by the Acting Chief Justice, Justice Wiredu, concerning the empanelling of Supreme Court justices, particularly the requirement or practice of having all available justices or at least seven justices sit on constitutional matters and review panels. The plaintiff sought declarations that the Practice Direction was null and void and that the Chief Justice's discretionary powers to empanel justices should be exercised in accordance with specific constitutional provisions. The plaintiff also raised objections regarding the Chief Justice's role in empanelling the bench in a case where he was a party, alleging bias and conflict of interest.
read moreJUDGEMENT Ampiah JSC. Delivered the judgment of the court. On 11 February 2002 this court, by a majority of five to four, gave judgment for the plaintiff herein in a suit entitled, Tsatsu Tsikata v Attorney-General—writ No 2/2002. Whereupon the Attorney-General, the defendant in that suit filed a motion for review of the decision of the court. The motion for review is yet to be heard but the plaintiff herein, in the interim, has filed this instant writ invoking the court’s original jurisdiction under articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the Constitution, 1992. In this writ the plaintiff seeks interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution, 1992 by: “(1) A declaration that on a true and correct interpretation of articles 125(4) and 128(1) and (2) of the Constitution, 1992 all available justices of the Supreme Court do not have ‘a constitutional right to sit’ ‘where practicable and especially in constitutional matters’, nor do ‘at least seven justices of the Supreme Cour...