DAVID APASERA & 42 OTHERS vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL& MINISTRY OF FINANCE [2020]DLSC9943

Date	2020-12-03
Suit No.	REF.NO. J6/03/2020
Citation No.	[2020]DLSC9943

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)

GBADEGBE JSC

PWAMANG JSC

DORDZIE (MRS) JSC AMEGATCHER JSC

LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS) JSC

PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS) JSC

MARIAN SERWAA MENSAH FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS.

AKAWARI-LINURU ATINDEM

STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS.

Accra(delivery within the same day or the next)

[2020]DLSC9943
																																						<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" >DAVID APASERA &amp; 42 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTITTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; THE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL&amp; MINISTRY OF FINANCE&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;(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>

[SUPREME COURT,
ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>

REF.NO. J6/03/2020&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;3RD DECEMBER, 2020 &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>

</div><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0in;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%;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">MARIAN SERWAA MENSAH FOR
THE PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%;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">AKAWARI-LINURU ATINDEM,
STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>DOTSE, JSC
(PRESIDING), GBADEGBE, JSC, PWAMANG, JSC, DORDZIE (MRS), JSC<o:p></o:p>AMEGATCHER, JSC,LOVELACE-JOHNSON
(MS), JSC, PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS), JSC<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0in;">

&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;
JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>GBADEGBE, JSC:-&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The
question presented for our decision in this case as set out in the order of
reference from the Court of Appeal dated 10th day of June 2020 is in
short as follows:<o:p></o:p>“Whether
on the combined reading of the constitutional provisions, we have alluded to
and referred to by the parties, i.e.&nbsp;
Articles 71(3), 98(1), 114 and 295, it was constitutional for the CHC to
have recommended payment of pension to the plaintiffs? “<o:p></o:p>Although
the order of reference did not fully indicate what is meant by CHC, a fair
reading of the ruling of the Court of Appeal under which the order of reference
was made under Article 130(2) of the 1992 Constitution informs us that it is an
acronym for the Chinery Hesse Committee. That was a committee set up by the
President in the exercise of his powers to determine the “salaries and
allowances payable and the facilities, and privileges available,” to designated
public officials under Article 71 of the Constitution. The facts on which the
reference turns not being in dispute, we are of the view that our jurisdiction
has been properly invoked in relation to the Articles mentioned in the order of
reference. The said Articles, which deal with questions of&nbsp;&nbsp; emoluments, benefits and retiring awards of
various categories of public officials mentioned in Article 71 are so variously
expressed that in order to put to rest the divergent meanings placed thereon, a
definitive pronouncement of this Court&nbsp;
in accordance with our mandate under Articles 2 and 130 of the
Constitution is required. Although the reference before us was made under
Article 130(2) of the Constitution, the authority to refer constitutional
matters to this Court is derived from Article 2 (1) by which this court and
none other is conferred with jurisdiction to determine questions of
constitutionality.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;At the outset, it is important to reiterate
that this Court has repeatedly said that in interpreting the Constitution we
must not read the particular provisions in isolation but as part of a single
document with a view to achieving coherence and or consistency. Thus, in the
case of Opremreh v The Electoral Commission and Another, [2011] 2
SCGLR,1159, the Court applying a previous statement of the principle in
National Media Commission v Attorney General [2000] SCGLR 1,&nbsp; observed at page&nbsp; 1165 as follows:<o:p></o:p>“But to begin with, it
is important to remind ourselves that we are dealing with our national
constitution, not an ordinary Act of Parliament. It is a document that
expresses our sovereign will and embodies our soul. It creates authorities and
vests certain powers in them. It gives certain rights to persons as well as
bodies of persons and imposes obligations as much as it confers privileges and
powers. All these duties, obligations, powers privileges and rights must be
exercised and enforced not only in accordance with the letter, but also with
the spirit, of the Constitution. Accordingly, in interpreting the Constitution,
care must be taken to ensure that all the provisions work together as part of a
functioning whole. The parts must fit together logically to form a rational,
internally consistent framework. And because the framework has a purpose, the
parts are also to work together dynamically, each contributing something
towards accomplishing the intended goal. Each provision must therefore be
capable of operating without coming into conflict with any other.”<o:p></o:p><p</main>