REPUBLIC vs. ADU-BOAHEN AND ANOTHER [1993]DLSC4893

Date	1993-06-28
Suit No.	[1992-93] 2 G B R 683 – 697
Citation No.	[1993]DLSC4893

FRANCOIS JSC

AMUA-SEKYI JSC

AIKINS JSC

WIREDU JSC

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC

AMPIAH JSC

KPEGAH JSC

T D BRODIE-MENDS WITH HIM BEN ANNAN

AFRAM ASIEDU FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

AHLIJAH ASSISTANT SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

FOR THE APPLICANT.

[1993]DLSC4893
																																						<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>ADU-BOAHEN AND ANOTHER<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 683 – 697&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: 28TH JUNE 1993<o:p></o:p>

AHLIJAH,
ASSISTANT SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, FOR THE APPLICANT.<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">

FRANCOIS
JSC, AMUA-SEKYI JSC, AIKINS JSC, WIREDU JSC, HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC, AMPIAH JSC,
KPEGAH JSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>FRANCOIS JSC. <o:p></o:p>The
National Public Tribunal invokes the jurisdiction of this court by way of case
stated under the Supreme Court Rules (CI 13) to seek answers to questions of a
constitutional nature arising from a case before it.<o:p></o:p>It
must be pointed out that the enabling authority is article 130 of the constitution.
CI 13 is merely the machinery of resort for a reference under the said article.<o:p></o:p>Article
130 is as follows:<o:p></o:p>“130(1) Subject to the jurisdiction of
the High Court in the enforcement of the Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms
as provided in article 33 of this Constitution, the Supreme Court shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction in -<o:p></o:p>(a) all matters relating
to the enforcement or interpretation of this Constitution; and<o:p></o:p>(b) all matters arising as
to whether an enactment was made in excess of the powers conferred on
Parliament or any other authority or person by law or under this Constitution.<o:p></o:p>130(2) Where an issue that relates to
a matter or question referred to in clause (1) of this article arises in any
proceedings in a court other than the Supreme Court, that court shall stay the
proceedings and refer the question of law involved to the Supreme Court for
determination; and the court in which the question arose shall dispose of the
case in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court.”<o:p></o:p>The
proceedings disclosed that the tribunal was fully aware of the enabling force
of article 130, invoking the adjectival rather than the substantive law,
consequently is a mere slip.<o:p></o:p>The
questions posed involve the interpretation of the words “partly heard” and “pending”,
as appearing in section 7 subsections (1), (3) and (4) of the First Schedule
i.e. the Transitional Provisions of the 1992 Constitution. The tribunal also
seeks an all-embracing pronouncement of the ambit and intendment of section 7
sub-sections (1), (2) and (4) of the said Transitional Provisions.<o:p></o:p>The
case from which the application derives, relates to charges which were brought
against Professor Adu Boahen and Mr Kwesi Pratt, the respondents herein, at the
National Public Tribunal, under section 25 (a) of PNDCL 78.<o:p></o:p>Briefly,
the facts alleged against the two respondents are that they disobeyed a summons
to testify as witnesses at a criminal trial. When charged for disobeying the
summons, the respondents refused to plead to the charges and pleas of “Not
guilty” were entered by the tribunal on their behalf.<o:p></o:p>The
jurisdiction of the tribunal has been challenged. The stated case consequently
seeks a resolution of the tribunal's powers, based on the interpretation of the
sections and sub-sections of the Transitional Provisions aforementioned.<o:p></o:p>For
an appreciation of the issues, section 7 of the Transitional Provisions and its
sub-sections (where relevant) are reproduced below.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“7(1) All cases partly heard before any of the
following Public Tribunals immediately before the coming into force of this
Constitution, may be&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; continued and
completed before that public tribunal—<o:p></o:p>(a) the National Public
Tribunal;<o:p></o:p>(b) Regional Public
Tribunals;<o:p></o:p>(c) District Public
Tribunals; and<o:p></o:p>(d) Community Public
Tribunals.<o:p></o:p>7(3) The National Public Tribunal
shall cease to exist upon completion of the partly heard cases referred to in
subsection (1) of this section, or within six months after the coming into
force of this Constitution, whichever is earlier.<o:p></o:p>7(4) All cases other than those
referred to in subsection (1) of this section pending before the National
Public Tribunal immediately before the coming into force of this Constitution,
shall be transferred to such court or tribunal as the Chief Justice may
direct.”<o:p></o:p>Since
the coming into force of the constitution on 7 January 1993, the jurisdictional
power of public tribunals has been seriously curtailed. Section 7 of the
Transitional Provisions clearly shows t</main>