[1997]DLSC11686 Login to Read Full Case <span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; color:#00B0F0">NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; color:#00B0F0">ATTORNEY-GENERAL<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family: "Book Antiqua",serif">[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;"> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">[1997-98] 1 GLR 378 – 461 DATE: 12<sup>th</sup> March 1997<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">COUNCIL<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">PETER ALA' ADJETEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm; mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">MARTIN AMIDU, DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL, FOR THE DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">CORAM<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">BAMFORD-ADDO JSC, AMPIAH JSC, KPEGAH JSC, A TUGUBA JSC, AKUFFO JSC.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;"> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt; mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">JUGEMENT<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">Bamford-Addo JSC. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">The plaintiff, the New Patriotic Party, a political party registered under the laws of Ghana as a body corporate, issued a writ to invoke the original jurisdiction under articles 2( 1) and 130 of the Constitution, 1992 for a declaration that:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">"(1) The Council of Indigenous Business Associations Law, 1993 (PNDCL 312) is inconsistent with and a contravention of, the Constitution, especially articles 21 (1) (e), 35(1), 37(2)(a) and (3), and that consequently, to the extent of such inconsistency, the said PNDCL 312 is void.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">(2) Consequential orders in exercise of this honorable court's jurisdiction under article 2(2) of the Constitution, 1992 prohibiting the Government of Ghana or any agency of the Government of Ghana from interfering with the constitutional freedom of association guaranteed to the persons and organisations covered by the said PNDCL 312, including an order that all state funds made available to the council under PNDCL 312 should be refunded to government chest."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">The Attorney-General raised a preliminary issue to the effect that the New Patriotic Party has no capacity or locus to commence an action under article 2(1) of the Constitution, 1992 on the ground that only a natural person can bring such an action. Article 2 (1) of the Constitution, 1992 provides:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">"2. (1) A person who alleges that-<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">(a) an enactment or anything contained in or done under the authority of that or any other enactment; or<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">(b) any act or omission of any person; is consistent with, or is in contravention of a provision of this Constitution, may bring an action in the Supreme Court for a declaration to that effect."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">The defendant submitted that the word "person" in the context in which it appears must be given its ordinary, plain and grammatical meaning, to mean only a natural person, no more. That the Interpretation Act 1960 (CA 4) has no relevance in the interpretation of the word "person" in article 2( 1) of the Constitution, 1992 since the context in which it appears would not permit the wide definition of "person" provided in CA 4.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">This argument seems to ignore the proper role of CA 4 in this country, which is that unless the contrary intention appears in any enactment, the interpretation of words provided in CA 4 ought to be applied, except where the context in which the word was used would not permit such an interpretation or where the enactment itself provides an interpretation of any particular words used therein. Therefore if the definition of the word "person" in CA 4, s 32 fits the context in which that word was use~ in article 2( 1) of the Constitution, 1992, that meaning ought to be applied. A "person" is defined in CA 4, s 32 thus: "Person includes a body corporate (whether a corporation aggregate or a corporation sole) and an unincorporated body of persons as well as an individual." Since in my view this meaning fits the context in which "person" is used in article 2(1) of the Constitution, 1992, there is no necessity for applying the canons of statutory interpretation suggested by the plaintiff, namely that that word must be given its ordinary grammatical meaning, and therefore I find resort to the canons of interpretation completely unnecessary in this case.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">I had occasion in the case of the Ghana Bar Association v Attorney-General, [1994-95] GBR 290, SC, to interpret the word "person" in article 2(1) of the Constitution, 1992 to comply with the definition of that word provided in CA 4. Since the issue has come up again in this case with the defendant arguing that, that meaning does not fit the context in article 2(1), I think that there is need for me to consider the defendant's arguments in this case again, and to give a full and a definitive ruling on this issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">Interpreting a Constitution is not the same as interpreting an ordinary statute. The Constitution is a political and meaningful document which requires a broad and liberal interpretation; its voice carries higher than that of an ordinary legislation and its pronouncements must be given as full and as wide effect as possible. Some constitutional rules of interpretation have been laid down and applied in this country, which requires that the provisions of the Constitution be given a liberal and broad meaning, rather than a narrow or doctrinaire one, to suit the changing social and political development of the nation. The oft-quoted rules of constitutional interpretation were forcefully enunciated by Sowah JSC (as he then was) in the case of Tuffour v Attorney General [1980] GLR 637 at 647-648, CA sitting as SC thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">"A written Constitution such as ours is not an ordinary Act of Parliament. It embodies the will of a people. It also mirrors their history. Account, therefore, needs to be taken of it as a landmark in a people's search for progress. It contains within it their aspirations and their hopes for a better and fuller life.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">The Constitution h