ASSOCIATION OF FINANCE HOUSES vs. BANK OF GHANA AND ATTORNEY GENERAL

The plaintiff, a company limited by guarantee representing finance houses, invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutional validity of the Bank of Ghana’s December 2018 Corporate Governance Directive on tenure for managing directors/chief executive officers, board chairs and non-executive directors of regulated financial institutions. The plaintiff contended that because the directive was issued pursuant to sections 56 and 92 of the Banks and Specialised Deposit-Taking Institutions Act, 2016 (Act 930), it constituted 'rules and/or regulations' within article 11(1)(c) of the 1992 Constitution and therefore ought to have been laid before Parliament and published in the Gazette under article 11(7) before coming into force. The Bank of Ghana and the Attorney-General argued that the directive was administrative/regulatory in character, not legislative, and thus did not require compliance with article 11(7). Portion of judgment: 'this suit is provoked by... "Explanatory Notes on the Revised Corporate Governance Directive issued in December 2018" and the "Corporate Governance Directive of 2018"' and 'The Plaintiff is of the view that "the directives of 27th December 2018... are legislative instruments... and therefore ought to be promulgated in accordance with Article 117..."'

Before us is a writ invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court brought by the plaintiff seeking the interpretation and the enforcement of the 1992 Constitution, and appropriate orders and directions to give effect to any orders made. CAPACITY The Plaintiff says that it is a company limited by guarantee and as such brings this action in the capacity of a person under Articles 2(1) and 130 of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana. BACKGROUND According to averments made by the Plaintiff, specifically at page 3 of its Statement of Case, this suit is provoked by a "document of the 1st Defendant dated in December 2018 and titled; "Explanatory Notes on the Revised Corporate Governance Directive issued in December 2018" and the "Corporate Governance Directive of 2018." These Documents, and not "document", are referred to by the Plaintiff as "the directives" and while the plaintiff says that both the explanatory notes and the Corporate Governance Directive of 2018 are m...