NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL [1997]DLSC11687

Date	1997-03-12
Suit No.	-
Citation No.	[1997]DLSC11687

BAMFORD-ADDO JSC

AMPIAH JSC

KPEGAH JSC

A TUGUBA JSC

AKUFFO JSC

PETER ALA' ADJETEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

MARTIN AMIDU DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1997]DLSC11687
																																						<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" >NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ATTORNEY-GENERAL<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o: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">[1997-98] 1 GLR 378 –
461&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: 12th March 1997<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNCIL<o:p></o:p>PETER
ALA' ADJETEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o: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;">

MARTIN AMIDU, DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL,
FOR THE DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>BAMFORD-ADDO
JSC, AMPIAH JSC, KPEGAH JSC, A TUGUBA JSC, AKUFFO JSC.<o:p></o: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">JUGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;Bamford-Addo
JSC. <o:p></o:p>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>"(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>(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>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>"2. (1) A person who
alleges that-<o:p></o:p>(a) an enactment or anything
contained in or done under the authority of that or any other enactment; or<o:p></o:p>(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>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>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>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>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>&nbsp;"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>The </main>