CHRAJ vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL [1999]DLSC16014

Date	1999-06-23
Suit No.	[1998-99] SCGLR
Citation No.	[1999]DLSC16014

CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC

A.MPIAH JSC

ADJABEN ATURUBA JSC

SOPHIA AKUFFO JSC

EK OFOSU-QUARTEY FOR PLAINTIFF

HON MARTIN A BK AMIDU

DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL (WITH HIM MRS BETTY MOULD-JDDRISU

CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR DEFENDANT

[1999]DLSC16014
																																						<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" >CHRAJ<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ATTORNEY-GENERAL<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1998-99]
SCGLR<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

&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;&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;&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
DATE: 23RD JUNE 1999<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<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: 0in 0in 1pt;">

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>CHARLES
HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC, A.MPIAH
JSC,
ADJABEN ATURUBA JSC, SOPHIA
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 0in;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;CHARLES
HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC <o:p></o:p>delivered the
judgment of the court. On 31
July 1998 this court dismissed (with the reasons reserved), the writ of the plaintiff, ie the Commission on Human Rights and
Administrative Justice - invoking the assistance of
this court to re solve an apparent
conflict in the relative positions
of the parties vis-a-vis
their respective functions
under the 1992 Constitution. For, whereas the plaintiff is, "in the performance of its functions, not subject to the direction or control of any person or authority", the defendant, the Attorney
General, on the other hand, is a member of the executive branch of government
and the chief legal adviser to the
government.<o:p></o:p>The principles of the separation of powers, to which to a great
extent our Constitution gives support,
enjoin this court as arbiters
of conflicts within the
Constitution, in the interpretation or enforcement thereof, not to adopt
attitudes and positions, which may appear to incline us into proffering advice
on matters, which do not come within the ambit of our adversarial adjudicatory
system as sanctioned by our Constitution. The parties to this litigation are
constitutionally independent; yet the plaintiff contends that their paths may
so cross each other as to authorise it to compel the defendant to take a stand
on matters regarding the exercise of the plaintiffs functions. Thus, by its
writ of summons, the plaintiff claims against the defendant a declaration that:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(a) section
35(2) of the transitional provisions of the 1992 Constitution, which empowers
the plaintiff to restore properties confiscated by the State, applies to and
embraces all confiscations of property made by the Anned Fo</main>