ASOKWA AND ANOTHER vs. THE REPUBLIC [1994]DLCA710

Date	1994-07-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1994]DLCA710

ESSIEM JA

AMUAH JA

FORSTER JA.

AGUDETSE FOR THE FIRST APPELLANT.

T N WARD-BREW FOR THE SECOND APPELLANT.

BRIGHT AKWETEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1994]DLCA710
																																						<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">ASOKWA AND ANOTHER<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">THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1993-94] 1 GLR 549<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">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>AGUDETSE FOR THE FIRST APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>T N WARD-BREW FOR THE SECOND APPELLANT.<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">

BRIGHT AKWETEY FOR THE REPUBLIC. <o:p></o:p>

ESSIEM, AMUAH AND FORSTER JJA.
<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF AMUAH JA.<o:p></o:p>The Brong-Ahafo Regional Public Tribunal on 18 November 1984
convicted the appellants on a charge of intentionally acting or omitting to act
which is shown to be detrimental to the economy of Ghana or to the welfare of
the sovereign people of Ghana contrary to section 9(2)(d) of the Public
Tribunal Law, 1984 (PNDCL 78) and sentenced them to various terms of
imprisonment and fines. The National Public Tribunal on August 1990 dismissed
the appellants’ appeal. Being aggrieved, they petitioned the National Public
Tribunal for review of the decision of the appellate tribunal. This application
was granted.<o:p></o:p>Thereafter learned counsel on behalf of the appellants presented
written addressed on which they intended to rely. The review proceedings were
therefore “pending” at the review tribunal before 7 January 1993, ie the date
of the coming into force of the Constitution, 1992. The Chief Justice in the
exercise of his powers under section 7(4) of the transitional provisions of the
Constitution, 1992 has transferred the review proceedings to this court for
continuation and completion.<o:p></o:p>The issue which arises at the commencement of the hearing is
whether this Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to continue and complete the
review proceedings. The special public prosecutor as well as counsel for the
appellants are of the view that in the special circumstances of this case when
the National Public Tribunal in non-existent, we can assume jurisdiction and
hear it. I seem to differ. It appears to me that the power of review is limited
to the National Public Tribunal and it can only be exercised where the matter
has been heard initially by the National Public Tribunal itself. Where the
matter is on appeal from a decision of a lower of tribunal, then it cannot review
any judgment it gives on appeal.<o:p></o:p>The judgment of Ampiah JSC in Republic v National Public Tribunal;
Ex parte Office of the Special Public Prosecutor [1993-94] 1 GLR 478, SC lends
support to this view. In that case, Amua-Sekyi and Kpegah JJSC entirely agreed
with him on the issue. In that case, the appellants, Sarpong and four others,
were convicted by the Ashanti Regional Public Tribunal. On appeal the National
Public Tribunal acquitted and discharged them. From my observation, the special
public prosecutor sought to have the decision of the appellate tribunal
reviewed by a body differently constituted, but the National Public Tribunal
which heard the appeal refused and fixed a date for hearing the case. The
special public prosecutor being aggrieved, applied to the Supreme Court for
directions as to whether “By reason of section 7(1) of the First Schedule of
the Constitution, 1992 the National Public Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear
the application.” There were other issues raised in the application but as they
are not relevant here I do not wish to refer to them.<o:p></o:p>In the arguments, which ensued before the Supreme Court, it was
held that the National Public Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the
application for review. For easy reference I reproduce the relevant portion of
the argument of Ampiah JSC which shows that the National Public Tribunal under
PNDCL 78, had no power to review a judgment given by it in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction. His lordship states at 509:<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">“A more serious issue arises over the petition. Is the petition
properly before the tribunal? Although section 5(3) of PNDCL 78 gives the
tribunal power to review its own decisions or orders other than its own
decisions or orders previously reviewed by it, section 19(2) of PNDCL 78
provides the circumstances under which a right to review can be invoked.
Section 5(3) of PNDCL 78 states, ‘(3) The National Public Tribunal shall have
power to review its own decisions or orders other than its own decisions or
orders previously reviewed by it.’ And, section 19(2) of PNDCL 78 provides:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">‘(2) A person who is aggrieved
by the decision or order of the National Public Tribunal in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction may by himself or his representative present a petition
in writing to the National Public Tribunal for a review of its decision or
order.’<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">