SPOKESMAN (PUBLICATIONS) LTD. vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL [1973]DLCA2334

Date	1973-07-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLCA2334

AZU CRABBE C.J.

APALOO JA

JIAGGE JA

SOWAH JA

KINGSLEY-NYINAH J.A.

JOE REINDORF FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

N.M.C. DODOO CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1973]DLCA2334
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">SPOKESMAN (PUBLICATIONS) LTD. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">ATTORNEY-GENERAL<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT OF APPEAL (FULL BENCH)]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1974] 1 GLR 88<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
30 JULY 1973.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

JOE
REINDORF FOR THE PLAINTIFFS<o:p></o:p>

N.M.C.
DODOO, CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

AZU CRABBE C.J., APALOO, JIAGGE, SOWAH
AND KINGSLEY-NYINAH JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AZU CRABBE C. J.<o:p></o:p>Azu
Crabbe C.J. delivered the ruling of the court. On 11 September 1971, the
plaintiff company filed a writ in the Supreme Court, established under the
suspended 1969 Constitution of the Republic, against the defendant, and claimed
the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">&nbsp;“(1) a declaration by the court under article
1 (2) and 2 (1) of the Constitution, that sections 182A, 182B and 183 (1), (2),
(5) and (6) of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29) are inconsistent with and in
contravention in particular of articles 3, 12, 20, 22, 23, 25 and 102 thereof.
(2) such consequential orders and directions, under article 2 (2) of the
Constitution, as the court may consider appropriate for giving effect to or
enabling effect to be given to the declaration above sought.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff company brought this suit in their capacity as a private liability
company incorporated and registered under the laws of Ghana to carry on the
business of publishing newspapers; they are owners and publishers of the
newspaper called The Spokesman that is sold and circulated in Ghana.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In a
statement of defence filed on 23 October 1971, on behalf of the defendant, it
was averred that the plaintiff company were not entitled to any of the reliefs
they claimed.<o:p></o:p>Under
article 106 (1) of the 1969 Constitution, the Supreme Court was vested with
exclusive original jurisdiction in the following cases:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“(a) in
all matters relating to the enforcement or interpretation of any provision of
this Constitution; and (b) where any question arises whether an enactment was
made in excess of the powers conferred upon<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">Parliament
or any other authority or person by law or under this Constitution.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before
this suit could be heard and determined, the civilian government was overthrown
in a military coup d’etat on 13 January 1972, and the operation of the 1969
Constitution of the Republic of Ghana was suspended by virtue of section 2 (1)
of the National Redemption Council (Establishment) Proclamation, 1972. But
notwithstanding the suspension of the Constitution, the original jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court was untouched, because the existing courts were permitted,
by virtue of section 4 of the Proclamation, to function with the same powers
and duties as before that date. The Supreme Court was eventually abolished on
13 September 1972, by section 1 of the Courts (Amendment) Decree, 1972
(N.R.C.D. 101), and its functions transferred to a full bench of the Court of
Appeal, consisting of five justices of that court. The jurisdiction of the full
bench is set out in section 3 (2) of the Courts (Amendment) Decree, 1972, as
follows:<o:p></o:p>