BILSON v ATTORNEY-GENERAL
December 12, 1994
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ADADE, ,EDWARD WIREDU, ,CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN, ,AMPIAH ,KPEGAH JJSC
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
December 12, 1994
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
By his writ filed on 26 August 1993, the plaintiff seeks:
"(a) A declaration that upon the true and proper interpretation of section 34 of the transitional provisions of the Constitution, 1992 only: (i) acts or omissions by persons which brought about the overthrow of the government of the First, Second and Third Republics of Ghana; (ii) acts or omissions of persons which occasioned the suspension or abrogation of the first, second and third Constitutions of the Republic of Ghana; and (iii) acts or omissions of persons which led to the establishment of the military regimes, namely the National Liberation Council (NLC), the National Redemption Council (NRC), the Supreme Military Council (SMC I and II), the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council [p.106] (AFRC), the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) and persons who acted or omitted to act on the instructions or authority of any of the aforementioned regimes, that are indemnified but not otherwise.
(b) A declaration that it is part of the fundamental human rights and freedoms provided in chapter five of the Constitution, 1992 that: (i) all persons in Ghana are equal before the law (article 17(1)); (ii) persons aggrieved by the acts or omissions of others have the right to seek redress before a court or tribunal (article 23); and (iii) any enactment including the said section 34 of the transitional provisions which expressly or by necessary intendment seeks to impede the citizens' access to the courts, or purports to take away the citizens' right to seek redress before the courts or denies any citizen the benefit or enjoyment of the said constitutional provision of equality before the law is contrary to the rule of law, unconstitutional and void."
The plaintiff attached to his writ a statement of his case, which, because of its brevity, I find necessary to reproduce in full:
"Statement of the plaintiff's case (1) The plaintiff is a citizen of Ghana and lives in Kumasi, Ashanti. (2) The plaintiff is a medical practitioner and an industrialist. (3) The plaintiff brings this action in his capacity as a citizen of Ghana. (4) The plaintiff says that the defendant is a Minister of State, the Attorney-General and the principal legal adviser to the government. (5) The plaintiff says that in the First Schedule of the transitional provisions (Part IV Miscellaneous) of the Constitution, 1992 is section 34, the side note of which is one word,
AI Generated Summary
A Ghanaian citizen residing in Kumasi, who is a medical practitioner and industrialist, sued the Attorney-General in the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction seeking declarations about section 34 of the 1992 Constitution’s Transitional Provisions (Indemnity) and affirmations of equality and access-to-court guarantees under articles 17(1) and 23. He argued section 34 was ambiguous and void insofar as it impeded fundamental rights. The Attorney-General asserted the writ disclosed no cause of action. In two substantive opinions, Justices Adade and Kpegah concluded that constitutional interpretation should occur only in the context of a genuine dispute; the Court does not issue abstract advice. The Court explained that section 34 would properly be interpreted when a defendant invoked it in a concrete case. Finding no alleged infringement or impediment and no live controversy, the Court held the writ disclosed no cause of action and, in one opinion, that the plaintiff lacked standing. The action was dismissed unanimously, with additional concurrences.