E.K. DOE ADJAHO (PLAINTIFF) vs. SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT AND ATTORNEY GENERAL (DEFENDANT) [2006]DLHC7511

E.K. DOE ADJAHO (PLAINTIFF) vs. SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT AND ATTORNEY GENERAL (DEFE... [2006]DLHC7511

Date	2006-02-06
Suit No.	SUIT NO: AP.13/2006
Citation No.	[2006]DLHC7511

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE BAFFOE BONNIE

TONY LITHUR FOR PLAINTIFF.

[2006]DLHC7511
																																						<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" >E.K. DOE ADJAHO<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT AND
ATTORNEY GENERAL<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH
COURT (FAST TRACK/AUTOMATED DIVISION), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT NO: AP.13/2006&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: 6TH FEBRUARY,2006<o:p></o:p>

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

TONY
LITHUR FOR PLAINTIFF.<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

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

</div>The
Plaintiff has issued a writ claiming: <o:p></o:p>a. A declaration that upon the
expiration of 3 months after the Representation of People’s (amendment) BILL
was introduced in Parliament by the 2nd Defendant on behalf of the President, a
report of the Committee can no longer be laid for further steps to be taken in
respect of the BILL. <o:p></o:p>b. A declaration that any
proceedings in respect of the Representation of People's (amendment) Bill
conducted in the constitutional legal and Parliamentary Committee or the
Parliament after the expiry of the 3 months period provided for in Article
106(14) to the committee is null and void. <o:p></o:p>c. An injunction restraining
1st Defendant from allowing further proceedings in Parliament regarding the
Representation of People’s (Amendment) BILL laid before Parliament on 14th
June, 2005 and referred to the Constitutional Legal and Parliamentary Committee
on that date. <o:p></o:p>d. Further and other reliefs. <o:p></o:p>Attached
to this writ was a 11-paragraph statement of claim. Even though the defendant
has been served they are yet to file appearance. In this application brought
ex-parte, the plaintiff/applicant, hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff, is
praying for an order restraining the defendants from taking any further steps
in Parliament in respect of the Representation of People's (Amendment) Bill
pending the final determination of the suit. <o:p></o:p>In
a statement of case attached to the application, the plaintiff submits that the
Bill was introduced on behalf of the President on 14/6/2005. Thereupon the Bill
was referred to the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Committee set up
under Article 103 of the Constitution. Article 106(14) of the Constitution
reads "A Bill introduced in Parliament by or on behalf of the President
shall not be delayed for more than 3 months in any committee of
Parliament" <o:p></o:p>It
is Plaintiff's submission that this provision of the constitution means and can
only mean that once a Bill is delayed for more than 3 months in any committee
it lapses and therefore has to be re-introduced. By parity of reasoning
therefore, having delayed in the Constitutional and Legal Committee for well
over 7 months, the said bill has lapsed and any attempt to proceed with the
said bill will be violating the clear and unambiguous meaning of Article 106
(14) of the Constitution and any laws passed from such procedure will be
unconstitutional. The Plaintiff further submitted that he had had to come
exparte "because of the indecent haste with which it appears the
majority in Parliament is seeking to proceed and the apparent unwillingness of
1st Defendant to ensure respect for the authority of the judicial
process".. <o:p></o:p>To
pre-empt the possibility of this court saying that the matter is a
Constitutional matter that calls for interpretation by the Supreme Court
counsel submitted that the Constitutional provision i.e. Article 106(14) is
precise, clear and unambiguous and the court is being respectfully asked to
apply it. He cited the case of BIMPONG BUTA v. GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL and
ORS. 2003-2004 SC GLR Volume 2 p 148 where the Supreme Court made it clear
that when there is a provision of the Constitution that is precise, clear and
unambiguous there is no issue of interpretation or enforcement of the
Constitution at stake that requires the involvement of the Supreme Court in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction. Other cases cited by counsel in support of
this proposition were ADUAMOA II vs. TWUM II (2000) SC GLR 165; GBEDEMAH
v. AWONOR WILLIAMS (1969) 2 GLR 458; OPPONG v. ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003-2004)
376; REPUBLIC vs. SPECIAL TRIBUNAL, EX-PARTE AKOSAH (1986) GLR 592. <o:p></o:p>Before
I go into the merits of the application let me first comment on the mode of the
application. <o:p></o:p>I
have had the chance to have a good look at the statement of case filed
alongside the application and had the chance to look at the pleadings. I have
also heard counsel in his viva voce submissions. <o:p></o:p>Order
19 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 CI 47 reads: Order 19 r 1 sub
rule 1: Every application in pending proceedings shall be made</main>