WILLIAM BROWN vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, MINISTER OF FINANCE AND CONTROLLER & ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL [2010]DLSC2540

WILLIAM BROWN vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, MINISTER OF FINANCE AND CONTROLLER & ACCOUNT... [2010]DLSC2540

Date	2010-02-03
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J1/1/2009
Citation No.	[2010]DLSC2540

WOOD (MRS) CJ (PRESIDING)

ANSAH JSC

OWUSU (MS) JSC

DOTSE JSC

ANIN YEBOAH JSC

ISAAC KWABENA ANTWI FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

SYLVIA ADUSU (MRS) P.S.A. FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[2010]DLSC2540
																																						<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" >WILLIAM BROWN<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ATTORNEY-GENERAL, MINISTER OF
FINANCE AND CONTROLLER &amp; ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J1/1/2009&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 3RD FEBRUARY, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>ISAAC KWABENA ANTWI FOR
THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

SYLVIA
ADUSU (MRS) P.S.A. FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<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">

WOOD
(MRS) CJ (PRESIDING), ANSAH JSC, OWUSU (MS) JSC, DOTSE JSC, ANIN YEBOAH &nbsp;JSC<o:p></o:p>

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

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;line-height:150%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>WOOD (MRS), CJ:-<o:p></o:p>On
the 7th August 2009 the plaintiff, William Brown, instituted these
proceedings invoking the original jurisdiction of this court, in his dual
capacity. First, as a concerned citizen of Ghana, pursuant to article 2(1) (b)
of the 1992 constitution, but second, and even more important, as the facts
demonstrate, in his capacity as a retired Deputy Auditor –General and President
of the Audit Service Pensioners Association. Contending that he stands
adversely affected by certain actions of the Minister of Finance and the
Controller and Accountant –General, he as a direct beneficiary of this action,
caused this writ to be issued against the Attorney-General, the Ministry of
Finance and the Controller and Accountant-General for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>1.
“That on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 178(1) (a); 179(2) (b);
187(14); 189(2); 189(3) of the 1992 Constitution administrative expenses
including salaries, allowances, pensions and gratuities of the Ghana Audit
Service determined by the Audit Service Board in consultation with the Public
Services Commission are not subject to the approval of Parliament or the
Minister of Finance.<o:p></o:p>2.
That the practice of the Minister of Finance in reviewing downwards AND OR
submitting estimates determined by the Audit Service Board under Article
189(3)(a) of the Constitution for Parliamentary approval is unconstitutional.<o:p></o:p>3.
That the reduction by the Ministry of Finance, of the annual estimates of the
administrative expenses of the Office of the Auditor-General including all
salaries, allowances, gratuities and pensions payable to persons serving in the
Audit Service before submission to Parliament, and the presentation of such
estimates by the Minister to Parliament for approval are unconstitutional.<o:p></o:p>4.
That the subjection of the annual estimates of administrative expenses of the
Audit Service to budget policy directives of the Executive branch of Government
including budget ceilings and hearings at the Ministry of Finance is
unconstitutional as the Ministry is empowered to hear and provide ceilings on
only expenses subject to annual appropriation.<o:p></o:p>5.
That the invitation of the Audit Service by any Parliamentary Committee
for&nbsp; discussions, hearings,
justifications or defence of the estimates determined by the Audit Service
Board under the Constitution is unconstitutional.<o:p></o:p>6.
That the payment of pensions and gratuities of retired officers and employees
of the Audit Service under the Social Security Fund instead of the Consolidated
Fund as provided for by the 1992 Constitution is unconstitutional.<o:p></o:p>7.
That the insistence by the Ministry of Finance for financial clearance before
recruitment can be made by the Board under Article 189(2) and failure to put
persons recruited under Article 189(2) of the Constitution on the payroll by
the Controller and Accountant-General because the Ministry of Finance has not
given financial clearance is unconstitutional.<o:p></o:p>8.
Any other order or orders that the honourable court deems fit to give effect to
the declarations sought by the Plaintiff in terms of Article 2(2) of the 1992
Constitution of Ghana.”<o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff’s case is simply that under the 1992 constitutional arrangement on
finance, there are two broad ways in which moneys can be withdrawn from the
consolidated fund as provided under article 178 (1), the first being
expenditure that is charged on the fund by either&nbsp; the constitution or by an Act of
Parliament.&nbsp; On this premise, his
argument is that parliamentary approval is not required for payments
specifically charged to the consolidated fund as provided under the articles
178 (1) (a) and 187 (14).&nbsp; Furthermore,
he contends that, since by virtue of article 187 (14), the administrative
expenses of the office&nbsp; Auditor- General,
including all salaries, allowances, gratuities and pensions payable to and in
respect of persons serving in the audit service is a direct charge on the
consolidated fund, when the Audit Service Board, acting in consultation with
the Public Services Commission as is mandated under article 189 (3), determines
the terms and conditions of its serving officers and employees, these become
automatically due fo</main>