JANET NAAKARLEY AMEGATCHER vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, THE SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT, THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION AND THE MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT [2012]DLSC2676

JANET NAAKARLEY AMEGATCHER vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, THE SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT, THE... [2012]DLSC2676

Date	2012-05-09
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J1/1/2012
Citation No.	[2012]DLSC2676

ATUGUBA AG. C.J (PRESIDING)

AKUFFO(MS.) J.S.C.

DATE-BAH J.S.C.

OWUSU (MS.)J.S.C.

ANIN-YEBOAH J.S.C.

GBADEGBE J.S.C.

AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) J.S.C.

NENE AMEGATCHER [WITH HIM MRS. VICTORIA BATH DOMINIC BRENYA

OTCHERE KWASI KELI DELATA AND MELLESA AMARTEIFIO] FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT.

SYLVESTER WILLIAMS FOR 1ST 2ND AND 3RD DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENT.

JAMES QUASHIE – IDUN [WITH HIM ANTHONY DABI] FOR THE 3RD DEFENDANT

[2012]DLSC2676
																																						<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" >JANET
NAAKARLEY AMEGATCHER<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ATTORNEY-GENERAL,
THE SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT, THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION AND THE MINISTER OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT<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. J1/1/2012&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 9TH MAY, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&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; <o:p></o:p>NENE
AMEGATCHER [WITH HIM MRS. VICTORIA BATH, DOMINIC BRENYA OTCHERE, KWASI KELI
DELATA AND MELLESA AMARTEIFIO] FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>SYLVESTER
WILLIAMS FOR 1ST 2ND AND 3RD
DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENT.<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">

JAMES QUASHIE – IDUN
[WITH HIM ANTHONY DABI] FOR THE 3RD 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">

ATUGUBA AG. C.J
(PRESIDING), AKUFFO(MS.) J.S.C., DATE-BAH J.S.C., OWUSU (MS.)J.S.C.,
ANIN-YEBOAH J.S.C., GBADEGBE J.S.C.,AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) J.S.C.<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">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>ATUGUBA, J.S.C:<o:p></o:p>On
6/2/2012 the plaintiff issued a writ invoking the original jurisdiction of this
court claiming in effect that the newly created District Assemblies are
unconstitutional.<o:p></o:p>On
29/2/2012 the question arose as to whether having regard to the provisions of
article 88(1) and (5) the Speaker of Parliament and the Minister of Local
Government have been properly joined to this action. <o:p></o:p>Article
88(1) and (5) are as follows:<o:p></o:p>“&nbsp; 88. &nbsp; (1)
There shall be an Attorney-General of Ghana who shall be a Minister of State
and the principal legal adviser to the Government.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (5) The Attorney-General shall be
responsible for the institution and
conduct of all civil cases on behalf of the State; and all civil proceedings against
the State shall be instituted against the Attorney-General as defendant.”
(e.s.)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
contentions of Mr. Nene Amegatcher are varied but the main thrust of them is
his contention that <o:p></o:p>“...
the Attorney-General was never intended
to act as legal counsel for the other two organs of State namely the
Legislature and the Judiciary as well as independent State institutions.
This is because our constitutional scheme clearly envisages situations where the interests of these
constitutional organs can be antithetical to each other resulting in
controversies that implicate serious questions of balances of power. It is
inequitable, or even immoral in such situations for the Attorney-General to be
legal adviser for the executive branch and other organs of State.” (e.s.)<o:p></o:p>The
main stance of the Attorney-General on the other hand is that article 88(5) is
clear and unambiguous and must be given its full effect.<o:p></o:p>We
are of the opinion that neither party is absolutely right as to his position on
this matter. By far the most definitive pronouncement of this court on this
issue is its decision in Republic v. High
Court, Accra; Ex parte Attorney-General (Delta Foods Ltd, Interested Party)
(1998-99) SCGLR 595 in which this court held that the Attorney-General is the
proper party to sue and be sued on behalf of the State. However, it is
discernible even from that decision that this
court did not give a raw application to article 88(5). It applied it in a
purposive manner, resorting to the essence of the provision as opposed to its
literal words. In short this court held that though the Minister of Food and Agriculture rather than the
Attorney-General had been wrongly sued yet in all the circumstances of the case
an amendment substituting the Attorney-General as defendant would meet the ends
of justice, since, inter alia the suit had been conducted throughout by
attorneys of the Attorney-General’s Department.<o:p></o:p>The
concerns of Nene Amegatcher arising from the position of the Attorney-General
as a political appointee have been fully adumbrated by</main>