[2012]DLSC6382 • October 19, 2012 • Supreme Court •
BAFFOUR OSEI-AKOTO vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
The plaintiff challenged the validity of executive instruments (E.I. 80, E.I. 81, and E.I. 82) issued by the President declaring new districts and municipalities, contending that these instruments should have been laid before Parliament pursuant to Article 117 of the 1992 Constitution before coming into force. The plaintiff argued that these executive instruments were statutory instruments requiring parliamentary scrutiny and approval.
read moreDR. DATE-BAH JSC This is the unanimous judgment of the Court. The basic issue raised in this case is whether when the Executive is authorised to issue an executive instrument under the enabling authority of a statute, the Executive is obliged to lay that executive instrument before Parliament before it can validly come into force. This Court held in Amegatcher v Attorney-General (SUIT NO J1/8/2012, judgment delivered on 26th July 2012) that Parliament had lawfully and constitutionally authorised the President to create districts by executive action. Section 1(2) of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462) provides that: “(2) The President may, by executive instrument— (a) declare an area to be a district; and (b) assign a name to the district.” The contention of the plaintiff in this case is that the executive instrument by which the President declares any area within Ghana to be a district should be placed before Parliament, because it comes within the intendment of...