NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY vs. GHANA BROADCASTING CORPORATION [1993]DLSC4384

Date	1993-11-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1993]DLSC4384

ARCHER CJ

FRANCOIS JSC

AMUA-SEKYI JSC

AIKINS JSC

WIREDU JSC

BAMFORD-ADDO JSC

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JJSC

ANTHONY FORSON ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE DEFENDANT WITH HIM

MRS ADUSAH-AMANKWA.

PETER ADJETEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF WITH HIM SAM OKUDZETO

NANA AKUFO-ADDO ASIEDU MISS GLORIA AKUFFO PHILIP ADDISON

ALEX QUAYNOR ANDWILLIAM ADDO.

[1993]DLSC4384
																																						<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" >NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA BROADCASTING
CORPORATION<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<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">

[1992-93] 2 G B R 522 -555&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; DATE: 30 NOVEMBER 1993<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ANTHONY
FORSON, ATTORNEY-GENERAL, FOR THE DEFENDANT, WITH HIM, MRS ADUSAH-AMANKWA.<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">

PETER
ADJETEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF, WITH HIM, SAM OKUDZETO, NANA AKUFO-ADDO, ASIEDU,
MISS GLORIA AKUFFO, PHILIP ADDISON, ALEX QUAYNOR&nbsp; ANDWILLIAM ADDO.<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">

ARCHER
CJ, FRANCOIS JSC, AMUA-SEKYI JSC, AIKINS JSC, WIREDU JSC, BAMFORD-ADDO JSC,
HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JJSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>ARCHER
CJ. I have had the opportunity of reading the reasons embodied in the opinion
of my brother Francois and I agree with the reasons. However, by way of
emphasis I wish to add a few words.<o:p></o:p>First,
I wish to stress that although the plaintiff relied on article 55 of the
constitution, I do not think that that article has any relevance to the action.
One has to read the whole of article 55 to appreciate its import. That article
deals with the organisation of political parties, the right to vote, and the
responsibility of the State and the state media to provide opportunities to all
political parties to present their programmes. Article 55(11) reads:<o:p></o:p>“The State shall provide fair
opportunity to all political parties to present their programmes to the public
by ensuring equal access to the state-owned media.”<o:p></o:p>Article
55(12) reads:<o:p></o:p>“All Presidential candidates shall be
given the same amount of time and space on the state-owned media to present
their programmes to the people.”<o:p></o:p>In
article 55(11) the operative words are fair opportunity to present programmes
to the public and equal access to the state-owned media. Programmes can be
presented either through public rallies or through the media owned by the
state, that is, newspapers, news agencies, radio and television. Programmes and
manifestos are usually launched and presented during elections and referenda.<o:p></o:p>Article
55(12) clearly deals with presidential elections and is very clear. The
state-owned media is to give each presidential candidate the same amount of
time and space for the presentation of each candidate’s programmes. It seems to
me that article 55 deals with an entirely different subject matter and has no
application to the facts of the plaintiff’s case.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff’s real constitutional trump card is article 163 which states that:<o:p></o:p>“All state-owned media shall afford
fair opportunities and facilities for the presentation of divergent views and
dissenting opinions.”<o:p></o:p>This
article serves the interests of all manner of persons namely, individuals,
group or body of persons incorporated and unincorporated. It applies also to
political parties. In contrast, articles 55(11) and (12) are restricted to
political parties with special requirements for general and presidential
elections. Words like “equal access” and “same amount of time and space” are
used whereas article 163 has no such words. The plaintiff can only succeed
under article 163.<o:p></o:p>The
other matter I wish to deal with is that between 1962 and 1966, this country
was a one-party state. When the former National Liberation Council enacted the
Ghana Broadcasting Corporation Decree 1968 (NLCD 226), the Council was planning
a return to civilian rule under multi-party system and therefore provided in
paragraph 9 the following:<o:p></o:p>“9(1) In its public service
broadcasting, the Corporation is expected to provide for—<o:p></o:p>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp; Government pronouncements, that is, speeches
by members of the National Liberation Council and Commissioners responsible for
departments of State consisting of statements of fact or explaining the
policies and actions of Government;<o:p></o:p>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp; Party political speeches dealing with the
views and policies of the various political parties (when they come into
being);<o:p></o:p>(c)&nbsp;&nbsp; Speeches expressing different points of view
on matters of controversy;<o:p></o:p>(d)&nbsp;&nbsp; matters of any kind (including religious
services or ceremonies) representing the main stream of religious thought or
belief in the country.<o:p></o:p>(2) In its broadcasting of the items
mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph the Corporation shall allocate
and apportion air-time equitably between the parties, points of view and
religious bodies according to their respective claims upon the interest of
members of the public of Ghana.”<o:p></o:p>The
substance in section 9(2) is the allocation and apportionment of airtime
equitably between the parties. Equitably does not connote equality. It means
fairness. NLCD 266 is an existing law and there is nothing in it that appears
to be inconsistent with the present constitution.<o:p></o:p>If
the present Constitution had not been enacted, the plaintiff could have sued
the defendant in the High Court for breach of statutory duty because the
defendant has as one of its “output requirements” under paragraph 9(2) an
obligation to allocate and apportion airt</main>