AGBEVOR vs ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2000]DLSC105

Date	2000-07-12
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2000]DLSC105

EDWARD WIREDU AG CJ JSC

KPEGAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

ATUGUBA JSC

AKUFFO JSC

N KUDJAWU FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

S Y ANIM

CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY

FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[2000]DLSC105
																																						<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">AGBEVOR<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">ATTORNEY-GENERAL<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 2 GLR 186<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:N KUDJAWU FOR
THE PLAINTIFF.S Y ANIM, CHIEF
STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE DEFENDANT.__________________________________________________________________CORAM:EDWARD WIREDU
AG CJ, KPEGAH, ADJABENG, ATUGUBA AND AKUFFO JJSC__________________________________________________________________JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Akuffo JSC. <o:p></o:p>Delivered the judgment of the Ag CJ, Adjabeng JSC and herself at
the invitation of Edward Wiredu Ag CJ. The events which have provoked this
action may be stated as follows: By a letter from the office of the President,
dated 20 March 2000 and addressed to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was informed
as follows:<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">“His Excellency the President has accepted the recommendation of
the Judicial Council, given in accordance with LI 319, section 28(2) of the
Judicial Service Regulations, 1963 and has directed your immediate redeployment
outside the Judicial Service for displaying a high degree of incompetence in
the discharge of your duties.”<o:p></o:p>By his writ herein, the plaintiff seeks from this court a
declaration that his removal from the Judicial Service as a judicial officer by
the President for the reasons stated, is contrary to article 151(1) of the
Constitution, 1992. In his statement of case in support of his claim, the
plaintiff, who until the said letter held the position of second deputy judicial
secretary, contended that:<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) The effect of the President’s letter was to remove him from
his judicial office; <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">(b) such removal was in punishment for allegations made against
him and which he was not given any opportunity to be heard in his defence,
contrary to section 25 of the Judicial Service Act, 1960 (CA 10); <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">(c) since the coming into force of the Constitution, 1992 the
provisions of regulation 28(2) of the Judicial Service Regulations, 1963 (LI
319) either ceased to apply for the purposes of removing a judicial officer, or
its application must be with such modifications as are necessary to bring those
provisions in conformity with article 151 of the Constitution, 1992; and <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">(d) by virtue of article 151, it is only the Chief Justice who has
the power to remove a judicial officer from office and such removal may only be
upon the grounds and pursuant to the process stipulated therein.”<o:p></o:p>The Honourable Attorney-General, in his statement of case,
contended that the holding of the position of a deputy judicial secretary did
not make the plaintiff a judicial officer, since the position of a judicial
officer is a creature of the law and is one which cannot be created outside
article 161 of the Constitution, 1992 or section 32 of the Judicial Service Act,
1960 (CA 10). He further contended that:<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) Regulation 28(2) of the Judicial Service Regulations, 1963
(LI 319) is not inconsistent with article 151 of the Constitution, 1992 and
remains applicable for the purposes of removing a judicial officer against whom
allegations are made.<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">(b) The plaintiff was given the opportunity to defend himself. <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">(c) The plaintiff is not a judicial </main>