STEPHEN KWABENA OPUNI vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND THE REGISTRAR (HIGH COURT, CRIMINAL DIVISION 1), ACCRA

The plaintiff, a former Chief Executive of COCOBOD, was standing trial before the High Court, Criminal Division 1, Accra in Suit No. CR/158/2018, Republic v Stephen Kwabena Opuni and 2 Others. After the trial judge on 7 May 2021 dismissed a submission of no case and called on the accused persons to open their defence, the plaintiff complained that the ruling contained final findings of fact on pages 54, 55, 59, 66, 67 and 75 which effectively presumed the accused persons guilty before the defence was heard, contrary to articles 19(1) and 19(2)(c) of the 1992 Constitution. He therefore invoked the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction seeking declarations, expungement of the impugned findings, and an injunction restraining the High Court from continuing the trial until those findings were removed. Portion of judgment: under the headings “WHAT THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS IN THIS COURT” and “FACTS PRECEDENT TO THE INSTANT WRIT.”

MAJORITY OPINION DOTSE JSC:- PROLOGUE:- We begin our decision in this case by referring extensively to the scholarly work of Prof. Kofi Kumado in his book, “ A Handbook of the Constitutional Law of Ghana and its History” from pages 282-284 as follows:- “Finally, by way of emphasis, we note that the position of the Supreme Court on its constitutionality powers under Article 2 (1) and 130 (1), as it has crystallised since the coming into force of the 1992 Constitution, has been succinctly summarised by Justice Akuffo in the Bimpong Buta v General Legal Council & Others, [2003-2004] 2 SCGLR 1206 as follows:- 1. A person bringing an action under Article 2 of the Constitution 1992 need not demonstrate that he has any personal interest in the outcome of the suit, that he as a citizen of Ghana suffices to entitle him to bring the action (Tufuor v A.G. [1980] GLR, 637 SC and Sam (No.2) v A.G [2000] SCGLR 305). 2. The “person” referred to in the context of Article 2 includes bot...