REPUBLIC vs. DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF PRISONS; EX PARTE NTI [1979]DLCA1105

Date	1979-11-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLCA1105

JIAGGE JA

SOWAH JA

ARCHER J.A.

A.L. DJABATEY DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL (MRS. ANSON PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY AND E. M. YAKUBU STATE

ATTORNEY WITH HIM) FOR THE APPELLANT.

ALHAJI KWAW SWANZY (K. AKAINYAH WITH HIM) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1979]DLCA1105
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF PRISONS; EX PARTE NTI<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 527<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:
21 NOVEMBER 1979<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

A.L. DJABATEY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL (MRS.
ANSON, PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY, AND E. M. YAKUBU, STATE<o:p></o:p>

ATTORNEY WITH HIM) FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

ALHAJI KWAW SWANZY (K. AKAINYAH WITH HIM) FOR THE
RESPONDENT.<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 1.0pt 0in">

JIAGGE, SOWAH AND ARCHER JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF JIAGGE J.A.<o:p></o:p>Jiagge
J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant submitted that the High
Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the application for habeas corpus as
soon as it was made known to that court that the respondent was in custody on
the orders of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council, then corporate Head of
State. That the tansitional provisions of the Constitution, 1979, s. 15 (2)
make it quite clear that there is a constitutional prohibition placed on the
courts in respect of executive, legislative and judicial actions of the Armed
Forces Revolutionary Council. That the High Court should have stayed
proceedings and referred the matter to the Supreme<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Court
under article 118 (1) and (2) for the interpretation of sections 15 (2) and (3)
and 16 of the transitional provisions. The transitional provisions, s. 15 (2)
and (3) provides:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“(2) For
the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that no executive, legislative or
judicial action taken or purported to have been taken by the Armed Forces
Revolutionary Council or by any person in the name of that Council shall be
questioned in any proceedings whatsoever, and, accordingly it shall not be
lawful for any Court or other tribunal to make any order or grant any remedy or
relief in respect of any such act. <o:p></o:p>(3) The
provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall have effect notwithstanding
that any such action as is referred to in that subsection was not taken in
accordance with any procedure prescribed by any law.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the respondent submitted that there was a prior issue to be decided—that of
the genuineness of the warrant of committal—before the question whether or not
section 15 (2) of the transitional provisions was applicable. He submitted that
the genuineness of the reports submitted by the respondent in the court below
was in doubt and that it was doubtful whether the act complained of was that of
the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council. Counsel for the respondent submitted
further that section 15 (2) of the transitional provisions did not take away
the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to grant bail.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant’s reply was that the question of jurisdiction was basic and must be
decided first. That on the returns, it was clear that the warrant of committal
was on the orders of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council and that this fact
ousted the jurisdiction of the High Court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In view
of article 217 of the Constitution, 1979 and sections 15 (2) and (3) and 16 of
the transitional provisions we are agreed that the issues involve the
interpretation of the Constitution. Under article 118 (2) a duty is imposed on
the High Court to stay proceedings and refer the matter to th</main>