SAM vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL (No 2) [2000]DLSC486

Date	2000-05-10
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2000]DLSC486

BAMFORD-ADDO JSC

AMPIAH JSC

ACQUAH JSC

ATUGUBA JSC

SOPHIA AKUFFO JSC

NTRAKWAH (WITH HIM IRENE DANQUAH (MISS)) FOR THE PLAINTIFF

E A ADDO SOLICITOR-GENERAL (WITH HIM S Y ANIM CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2000]DLSC486
																																						<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">SAM<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 (No 2)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 2 GLR 336<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

NTRAKWAH (WITH HIM IRENE
DANQUAH (MISS)) FOR THE PLAINTIFF<o:p></o:p>

E A ADDO, SOLICITOR-GENERAL
(WITH HIM S Y ANIM, CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

BAMFORD-ADDO, AMPIAH, ACQUAH,
ATUGUBA AND SOPHIA AKUFFO JJSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Bamford-Addo
JSC. <o:p></o:p>The plaintiff issued a writ to invoke the original jurisdiction of
this court, seeking the interpretation of the Constitution, 1992 and a
declaration 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">“Section 15 or the Divestiture of State Interests (Implementation)
Law, 1992 (PNDCL 326), is inconsistent with or in contravention of the
provisions of articles 140(1) and 293(2) and (3) of the Constitution, 1992, and
to that extent, it is null and void”<o:p></o:p>Preliminary
objection<o:p></o:p>The Attorney-General, the defendant, raised a preliminary
objection to this action on the ground that the plaintiff has no standing to
bring the suit since he has no personal interest in the outcome of the case. He
asked that the plaintiff’s writ be struck out and dismissed for lack of
standing. The defendants’ grounds for the preliminary objection were 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) A controversy or dispute concerning the interpretation of an
enactment must have arisen before the said declaration can be sought; 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">(b) that according to article 2(1) of the Constitution, 1992 the
meaning of “person” contained therein is referable to an aggrieved person or a
person whose interest has been adversely affected by the construction of an
enactment or anything contained in the enactment; for the reason that the
Supreme Court does not “tender advice” to prospective litigants but interprets
the Constitution in the context of disputes.”<o:p></o:p>The Solicitor-General, counsel for the defendant, submitted that
even though the “dispute and controversy” requirement was not expressly stated
in article 2(1) of the Constitution, 1992:<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">“It is clear that all over the realms of the civilised world,
courts exist to settle disputes and that it is only those whose interests have
been adversely affected in one way or the other by the construction of a said
enactment or a provision of that enactment who are entitled to a declaration.
The Constitution, 1992 therefore, assumed this as given and did not elaborate
this expressly in the Constitution.”<o:p></o:p>I find this submission to be wrong and untenable having regard to
the provisions of our peculiar Constitution. The case of Bilson v
Attorney-General [1993-94] 1 GLR 104, SC was heavily relied on to support the
stance of the Solicitor-General and he asked this court to apply the decision
in that case and thereby to dismiss this present case in limine. The plaintiff
invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under article 2(1) of
the Constitution, 1992 which article says:<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">“2. (1) A person who alleges 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) an enactment or anything contained in or done under the
authority of that or other enactment, or <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) any act or omission of any person;<o:p></o:p>