NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY vs. GHANA BROADCASTING CORPORATION [1993]DLSC774

Date	1993-11-30
Suit No.	[1993-94] 2 GLR 354
Citation No.	[1993]DLSC774

ARCHER CJ JSC

FRANCOIS JSC

AMUA-SEKYI JSC

AIKINS JSC

EDWARD WIREDU JSC

BAMFORD-ADDO JSC

CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC

PETER ALA ADJETEY (WITH HIM SAM OKUDJETO NANA AKUFO-ADDO AFRAM ASIEDU MISS GLORIA AKUFO PHILIP ADDISON ALEX QUAYNOR AND WILLIAM ADDO) FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

ANTHONY FORSON ATTORNEY-GENERAL (WITH HIM MRS. ADUSA-AMANKWAH CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1993]DLSC774
																																						<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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY<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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">GHANA BROADCASTING CORPORATION<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1993-94] 2 GLR 354<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 30
NOVEMBER 1993<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>PETER ALA ADJETEY (WITH HIM SAM OKUDJETO, NANA AKUFO-ADDO, AFRAM
ASIEDU, MISS GLORIA AKUFO, PHILIP ADDISON, ALEX QUAYNOR AND WILLIAM ADDO) FOR
THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

ANTHONY FORSON, ATTORNEY-GENERAL (WITH HIM MRS. ADUSA-AMANKWAH,
CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE DEFENDANT.
<o:p></o:p>

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

</div>JUDGMENT OF ARCHER CJ<o:p></o:p>I have had the opportunity of reading the reasons embodied in the
opinion of my brother Francois JSC 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, 1992, I do not think that that article has any
relevance to the action. One has to read the whole of article 55 of the
Constitution, 1992 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-owned media to provide opportunities to all political
parties to present their programmes.<o:p></o:p>Article 55(11) and (12) of the Constitution, 1992 reads:<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">“(11) 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><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">(12) 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) of the Constitution, 1992 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, ie newspapers, news agencies,
radio and television. Programmes and manifestoes are usually launched and
presented during elections and referenda.<o:p></o:p>Article 55(12) of the Constitution, 1992 clearly deals with
presidential elections and the article is very stringent. 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
of the Constitution, 1992 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 of
the Constitution, 1992 which states that: “All state-owned media shall afford
fair opportunities and facilities for the presentation of divergent views and
dissenting opinions.” 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, article 55(11) and (12) of
the Constitution, 1992 is 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 of the
Constitution, 1992 has no such words. The plaintiff can only succeed under
article 163 of the Constitution, 1992.<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 a multi-party system and
therefore provided in paragraph 9 the following:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:33.6pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“9. (1) In its public service
broadcasting, the Corporation is expected to provide for—<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo8;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(a)<sp</main>