BAFFOUR OSEI-AKOTO vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2012]DLSC6382

Date	2012-10-19
Suit No.	WRIT No. J1/16/2012
Citation No.	[2012]DLSC6382

DR. DATE-BAH J.S.C (PRESIDING)

ANSAH J.S.C.

ADINYIRA (MRS) J.S.C.

ANIN-YEBOAH J.S.C.

BAFFOE-BONNIE J.S.C.

GBADEGBE J.S.C.

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

GODFRED DAME YEBOAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF

SYLVESTER WILLIAMS (PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2012]DLSC6382
																																						<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" >BAFFOUR OSEI-AKOTO<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL <o:p></o:p>[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">

WRIT No. J1/16/2012&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: 19TH OCTOBER, 2012<o:p></o:p>

SYLVESTER
WILLIAMS (PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>DR.
DATE-BAH J.S.C (PRESIDING), ANSAH J.S.C., ADINYIRA (MRS) J.S.C., ANIN-YEBOAH
J.S.C., BAFFOE-BONNIE J.S.C., GBADEGBE J.S.C., AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS.) J.S.C<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>DR. DATE-BAH JSC <o:p></o:p>This
is the unanimous judgment of the Court.&nbsp;
The basic issue raised in this case is whether when the Executive is
authorised to issue an executive instrument under the enabling authority of a
statute, the Executive is obliged to lay that executive instrument before
Parliament before it can validly come into force.&nbsp; This Court held in Amegatcher v
Attorney-General (SUIT NO J1/8/2012, judgment delivered on 26th July 2012) that
Parliament had lawfully and constitutionally authorised the President to create
districts by executive action.&nbsp; Section
1(2) of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462) provides that: <o:p></o:p>“(2)
The President may, by executive instrument— <o:p></o:p>(a)
declare an area to be a district; and <o:p></o:p>(b)
assign a name to the district.” <o:p></o:p>The
contention of the plaintiff in this case is that the executive instrument by
which the President declares any area within Ghana to be a district should be
placed before Parliament, because it comes within the intendment of article
11(7) of the 1992 Constitution. <o:p></o:p>Article
11(7) states that:<o:p></o:p>“(7) Any Order, Rule or Regulation
made by a person or authority under a power conferred by this Constitution or
any other law shall— <o:p></o:p>(a) be laid before
Parliament; <o:p></o:p>(b) be published in the
Gazette on the day it is laid before Parliament; and <o:p></o:p>(c) come into force at the
expiration of twenty-one sitting days after being so laid unless Parliament,
before the expiration of the twenty-one days, annuls the Order, Rule or
Regulation by the votes of not less than two thirds of all the members of
Parliament.” <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff contends that the Creation of Districts Instrument, 2011 (E.I. 80),
the Creation of Municipalities Instrument, 2011 (E.I. 81) and the Declaration
of Municipalities Instrument, 2011 (E.I. 82) which were made on 22nd November,
2011 and gazetted on the 25th November, 2011 were made in contravention of the
above-quoted Article 11(7) of the 1992 Constitution and therefore should be
declared null and void.&nbsp; The main issue
in controversy is whether these executive instruments are in the nature of an
“Order, Rule or Regulation” made by a person or authority under a power
conferred by a law. <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff relies on the Interpretation Act, 2009 (Act 792) to sustain his argument.&nbsp; His contention is that the Constitution does
not contain a definition of “Order, Rule or Regulation”.&nbsp; He submits that there is an ambiguity as to
the meaning of the phrase, as used in Article 11(7).&nbsp; There is thus justification for resorting to
the Interpretation Act, 2009 to help ascertain the meaning of the phrase.&nbsp; The Memorandum to the Interpretation Bill,
2009 states as follows, in relation to Article 11(7) of the Constitution: <o:p></o:p>“Each of these instruments would fall
under the definition of statutory instrument or statutory document as specified
in clause 1 of the Bill.&nbsp; There are other
instruments not mentioned under article 11 of the Constitution, such as
Bye-Laws and Proclamations.&nbsp; The express
mention of Orders, Regulations and Rules excludes, by necessary implication,
the other statutory instruments or statutory documents not so mentioned.&nbsp; These instruments, therefore, do not fall
within the ambit of article 11.” <o:p></o:p>Seizing
on this passage from the Memorandum, the plaintiff argues that the framers of
the Interpretation Act, 2009 intended that the meaning of “statutory
instrument” or “statutory document” should be the yardstick for determining the
applicability of Article 11(7).&nbsp; A
statutory instrument is defined in section 1 of the Interpretation Act, 2009
as: “an instrument made, whether directly or indirectly, under a power
conferred by an Act of Parliament.”&nbsp; He
therefore concludes that an executive instrument is a statutory instrument and
falls within the category of Orders, Regulations and Rules, within the
intendment of article 11(7). Accordingly, E.I. 80, E.I. 81 and E.I. 82, being
statutory instruments should have been laid before Parliament, in compliance
with article 11(7). <o:p></o:p>This
interpretation is not persuasive.&nbsp; For a
start, section 10(2)(b) of the Interpretation Act, 2009 states merely as
follows: <o:p></o:p>