ZAINABU NASKE BAKO-ALHASSAN vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2013]DLSC2700

Date	2013-04-24
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J1/22/2012
Citation No.	[2013]DLSC2700

W. A. ATUGUBA JSC – PRESIDING

J. ANSAH JSC

R. OWUSU (MS) JSC

J. DOTSE JSC

P. BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

N.S GBADEGBE JSC

V. AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC

NO REPRESENTATION FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

SYLVESTER WILLIAMS (PSA) FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[2013]DLSC2700
																																						<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" >ZAINABU NASKE BAKO-ALHASSAN<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ATTORNEY-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. J1/22/2012&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:
24TH APRIL, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>NO REPRESENTATION 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">

SYLVESTER WILLIAMS (PSA)
FOR THE 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">

W. A. ATUGUBA JSC – PRESIDING, J. ANSAH JSC, R.
OWUSU (MS) JSC, J. DOTSE JSC, P. BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC, N.S GBADEGBE JSC, V.
AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) 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">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>DOTSE
JSC: <o:p></o:p>I wish to preface this judgment by making two statements
about the role of the Supreme Court when it’s original jurisdiction is invoked
in contemporary Ghana. Michael G. Trachtman, in the introduction remarks in his
invaluable book on the U. S. Supreme Court entitled “The Supremes Greatest Hits”, stated the following as the methods
by which the Supreme Court keeps the Constitution alive. These are:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “First in
the same way it interpretes statutes, it interprets the constitution.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The second
is the power of the Supreme Court to decide that any act of a government
official, and any law passed by a government, violates the Constitution and is
therefore invalid and of no effect. This power, termed the power of “judicial
review” is virtually limitless, possibly limited by the constitution itself.”<o:p></o:p>From the
above two methods by which the U.S. Supreme Court has been identified to keep
that country’s constitution alive, the same can be said of our Supreme Court
under the Constitution 1992. Indeed the Ghana Supreme Court also has this
interpretive and enforcement jurisdiction as well as its judicial review aspect
when it exercises it’s original jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Ghana
Supreme Court, has since the promulgation of the Constitution 1992 been called
upon to interpret the Constitution in several cases. See cases like:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; J. H. Mensah v A.G. [1996-97] SCGLR 320, holding 7, where the Supreme court held thus:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“The
Supreme Court had the power to determine political questions because the
cumulative effect of articles 2 (1) and (3) – (5) and 130 (1) of the
Constitution was to invest in the Supreme Court an original jurisdiction to
entertain all cases relating to the enforcement and interpretation of any
provision of the constitution and all questions relating to the
constitutionality of any enactment or any act or omission by any person.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>