REPUBLIC vs. NATIONAL PUBLIC TRIBUNAL, EX PARTE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1993]DLSC4896

REPUBLIC vs. NATIONAL PUBLIC TRIBUNAL, EX PARTE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PRO... [1993]DLSC4896

Date	1993-06-28
Suit No.	[1992-93] 2 G B R 556 – 585
Citation No.	[1993]DLSC4896

ADADE JSC

FRANCOIS JSC

AMUA-SEKYI JSC

WIREDU JSC

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC

AMPIAH JSC

KPEGAH JSC

J C AMONOO-MONNEY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR WITH HIM LT COL AGBLOYOR

ASSISTANT SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

I E OSEI-BONSU WITH HIM

D O LAMPTEY FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1993]DLSC4896
																																						<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>NATIONAL PUBLIC
TRIBUNAL, EX PARTE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR<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 556 – 585&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: 28 JUNE 1993<o:p></o:p>

I
E OSEI-BONSU, WITH HIM, D O LAMPTEY, FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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">

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

</div>ADADE JSC. <o:p></o:p>On
26/11/1991, in a criminal case entitled: The People v Sarpong and others, the
first four accused persons were arraigned before the Ashanti Regional Public
Tribunal, charged with certain offences. They were tried, convicted on 21/2/92 and
sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The 5th accused person was tried in
absentia. He was also convicted and sentenced. The record before us would seem
to indicate that all the five convicted persons appealed to the National Public
Tribunal against their convictions and sentences. On 3/12/92 the National
Public Tribunal allowed the appeals, acquitted and discharged each of the
accused persons. Reasons for the decision of 3/12/92 were read on the 17/12/92.<o:p></o:p>The
new constitution of the Republic of Ghana came into force on 7/1/93. Four days
later, on 11/1/93, the prosecutor petitioned the National Public Tribunal under
section 5(3) of the Public Tribunals Law 1984 (PNDCL 78) to review its decision
of 3/12/92. When the petition came up for hearing before the National Public
Tribunal, Lt Col Agbloyor, an Assistant Special Public Prosecutor, representing
the Office of the Special Public Prosecutor, the applicant, objected to the
jurisdiction of the National Public Tribunal.<o:p></o:p>The
arguments he advanced in support of his objection were neatly and faithfully
summarised by the National Public Tribunal in its ruling and I can do no better
than reproduce this summary in extenso as follows:<o:p></o:p>“According to counsel for the
applicants, since his petition was filed on the 11th day of January 1993, being
four days after the coming into force of the 1992 Constitution, the petition
for review constituted a new matter. Counsel then stated thereafter that his
subsisting petition was neither partly heard nor pending and sought to support
this submission with the further statement that the respondents in this case
were the appellants in the earlier case, while in this present one they are
respondents, while the applicants who were respondents in the earlier case are
now the applicants in this case.<o:p></o:p>Counsel then stated the rationale
behind his arguments as follows:<o:p></o:p>‘If the National Public Tribunal
cannot hear a pending case before it, then by parity of reasoning it cannot
hear a fresh matter put before it; unless under Article 7(1) and (4) of the
Transitional Provisions of the 1992 Constitution, the Chief Justice
specifically directs that the National Public Tribunal hears the case.’<o:p></o:p>Counsel on this note submitted then,
that the appellant and the review tribunal which is part of the National Public
Tribunal, should remit the present petition for review to the Chief Justice for
his direction on the matter.”<o:p></o:p>Mr
Osei Bonsu, representing the respondents, Sarpong and others, associated
himself with the substance of Lt Col Agbloyor’s submissions, that the National
Public Tribunal had no jurisdiction and that the matter be referred to the
Chief Justice for directions.<o:p></o:p>After
considering all the arguments, including the constitutional provisions relied
on by counsel, the National Public Tribunal ruled that it had jurisdiction to
entertain the application and to hear it. The ruling was delivered on 11/2/93.<o:p></o:p>The
main plank in the reasoning of the National Public Tribunal was that the
application for review put before it was a continuation of the appeal which had
been decided by it on 3/12/92, and therefore under section 7(1) and section 15
of the Transitional Provisions the National Public Tribunal had jurisdiction to
continue and complete it; it could hear it. The Tribunal accordingly fixed a date
for hearing the review.<o:p></o:p>On
25/3/93 the Special Public Prosecutor, dissatisfied with the ruling of the
National Public Tribunal, filed the instant application to this court, asking
the reliefs specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the petition, as follows:<o:p></o:p>“8. The applicants are therefore
seeking directions to the National Public Tribunal as to whether:<o:p></o:p>(a) section 15 of the 1st
Schedule to the constitution is relevant to the case;<o:p></o:p>(b) by section 7(1) of the
1st Schedule, the National Public Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the
application;<o:p></o:p>(c)&nbsp;&nbsp; having regard to section 7(1), (3) and (4)
of the 1st Schedule the application to the National Public Tribunal has to be
referred to the Chief Justice for direction;<o:p></o:p>(d)&nbsp;&nbsp; as the application does not seem to fall
under section 7(1) or (4) of the 1st Schedule the Supreme Court would give
appropriate orders for the disposal of the case.<o:p></o:p>9. The applicant also seeks generally
any further or other orders necessitated by the ruling given by the National
Public Tribunal on 11 </main>