ATTORNEY-GENERAL vs COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE [1999]DLSC112

Date	1999-06-23
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1999]DLSC112

CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC

AMPIAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

ATUGUBA JSC

AKUFFO JSC

MARTIN A B K AMIDU DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL (WITH HIM MRS BETTY MOULD IDDRISU CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

E K OFOSU-QUARTEY FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1999]DLSC112
																																						<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">ATTORNEY-GENERAL<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">COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000]
1 GLR 358<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">

</div>COUNSEL:MARTIN A B K AMIDU, DEPUTY
ATTORNEY GENERAL (WITH HIM MRS BETTY MOULD IDDRISU, CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR
THE PLAINTIFF.E K OFOSU-QUARTEY FOR THE
DEFENDANT.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________CORAM:CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN,
AMPIAH, ADJABENG, ATUGUBA AND AKUFFO JJSC___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________JUDGMENT
OF CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC<o:p></o:p>Charles Hayfron-Benjamin
JSC.
delivered the judgment of the court. On 31 July 1998 we dismissed the
plaintiff’s case. On even date we also dismissed the defendant’s (then the
plaintiff’s) case against the Attorney-General (then the defendant) in
Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice v Attorney General
[1999-2000] 1 GLR 697, SC. The present suit was obviously in reaction to the
earlier writ issued by the Commissioner for Human Rights and Administrative
Justice against the Attorney General wherein, in our view, the constitutional parameters
of the commission’s functions were spelled out by us. On hindsight, we should
have consolidated the two writs—that is to say, writ No 3/96 and writ No
17/96—and rendered a single judgment which would have covered all the issues
raised by the parties. As it happened, we have furnished our reasons for
dismissing the commission’s action under writ No 3/96. To the extent,
therefore, that some of the issues set out for determination in this writ are
covered by our reasons in writ No 3/96, those reasons are deemed to be
incorporated in the present reasons and the earlier reasons, where relevant,
will be considered as binding authority in the present judgment.<o:p></o:p>By
his writ, the plaintiff (the Attorney-General) sought four principal reliefs
and one general relief, which last relief was of no consequence and did not
merit any consideration. Of the four remaining reliefs, the relief (iv) which
claimed for “An order of injunction restraining the defendants from continuing
to violate the provisions of the constitution, 1992 by its unconstitutional
conduct”, was in our respectful opinion “too broad and a clog on the
defendant’s constitutional powers.”<o:p></o:p>An
injunction is an equitable relief. To grant such an equitable relief, would
require the constant supervision of the exercise of the functions of the
defendant commission. It is trite learning that equity will not support an
order which requires the constant supervision of the courts. Besides, the
Constitution, 1992 having granted the defendant a limited discretion, in the
exercise of its discretion, it would be a clog on its constitutional powers if
at any time it becomes necessary to grant an injunction in the exercise of its
powers and functions under the Constitution, 1992. Where a constitutional body
exceeds its powers, thereunder or exercises functions which it does not possess
such excess or exercise is ultra vires the Constitution and void and may be so
declared by a court of competent jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p>Nor
would we subscribe to the submissions of the plaintiff that the defendant “has
exhibited an intention to continue to engage in its illegal and
unconstitutional conduct and will continue to do so unless restrained by this
court.” (The emphasis is ours.) This prayer for equitable relief arises out of
a presumed catalogue of “conduct” which the plaintiff contends were in
purported breach of the defendant’s constitutional functions. For the sake of
brevity these may be summed up thus:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.5in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(i).&nbsp;&nbsp;
The defendant</main>