TSIKATA vs. CHIEF JUSTICE & ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2002]DLSC1275

Date	2002-05-18
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2002]DLSC1275

AMPIAH JSC

ACQUAH JSC

ATUGUBA JSC

AKUFFO JSC

LAMPTEY JSC

PROF E V O DANKWAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPLICANT.

NANA AKUFO-ADDO ATTORNEY-GENERAL (WITH HIM MS GLORIA AKUFFO DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OSAFO SAMPONG DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS AND S Y ANIM CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE DEFENDANT RESPONDENTS.

[2002]DLSC1275
																																						<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">TSIKATA<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">CHIEF JUSTICE &amp; ATTORNEY-GENERAL<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2001-2002] 1 GLR 186<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>PROF E V O DANKWAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPLICANT.<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">

NANA AKUFO-ADDO, ATTORNEY-GENERAL (WITH HIM MS GLORIA AKUFFO,
DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL, OSAFO SAMPONG, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS AND S Y
ANIM, CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY), FOR THE DEFENDANT RESPONDENTS. <o:p></o:p>

AMPIAH, ACQUAH, ATUGUBA, AKUFFO AND LAMPTEY JJSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Ampiah JSC. Delivered the judgment of the court. On 11 February 2002 this court,
by a majority of five to four, gave judgment for the plaintiff herein in a suit
entitled, Tsatsu Tsikata v Attorney-General—writ No 2/2002. Whereupon the
Attorney-General, the defendant in that suit filed a motion for review of the
decision of the court. The motion for review is yet to be heard but the
plaintiff herein, in the interim, has filed this instant writ invoking the
court’s original jurisdiction under articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the
Constitution, 1992. In this writ the plaintiff seeks interpretation and
enforcement of the Constitution, 1992 by:<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">“(1) A declaration that on a true and correct interpretation of
articles 125(4) and 128(1) and (2) of the Constitution, 1992 all available
justices of the Supreme Court do not have ‘a constitutional right to sit’
‘where practicable and especially in constitutional matters’, nor do ‘at least
seven justices of the Supreme Court’ have such a right as purportedly conferred
on them by a Practice Direction of His Lordship, the Acting Chief Justice (as
he then was), Mr Justice Wiredu, dated 10 January 2001. <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) A declaration that the 10 January 2001 Practice Direction of
His Lordship, the Acting Chief Justice (as he then was), Justice Wiredu, is
null and void being contrary to articles 128(2) and 125(4) 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">(3) A declaration that on a true and correct interpretation of
article 133(2) of the Constitution, 1992 there is no constitutional requirement
for there to be a panel of eleven justices of the Supreme Court to hear a
review of a decision by a panel of nine justices of the Supreme Court. <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">(4) A declaration that on a true and correct interpretation of
article 133(2) of the Constitution, 1992 except in the case heard by a panel of
five justices of the Supreme Court, there is no requirement for His Lordship,
the Chief Justice to add two additional justices of the Supreme Court to hear
an application for review of a Supreme Court decision. <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">(5) A declaration that the power of the Chief Justice under
article 125(4) of the Constitution, 1992 to empanel the Supreme Court to hear
cases is a discretionary power to be exercised in accordance with article
296(a) and (b) 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">(6) An order of injunction directed to His Lordship, the Chief
Justice, Mr Justice Wiredu, restraining him from acting on the basis of the
said Practice Direction of 10 January 2001 in empanelling justices of the
Supreme Court for the hearing of cases. <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">(7) A direction to His Lordship, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice
Wiredu, that he empanel justices of the Supreme Court for cases to be heard by
the court on the basis of articles 128(2) and 133(2) of the Constitution, 1992
and having due regard to articles 125(4) and 296(a) and (b) 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">(8) A declaration that on a true and correct interpretation of
article 128(1) of the Constitution, 1992 there is no ‘ordinary bench’ nor is
there a ‘full bench’ of the Supreme Court as existed under the Constitut</main>