CAPTAN v. MINISTER OF INTERIOR
1970
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
- Akufo-Addo C.J.
- CJ Azu Crabbe
- Siriboe
- Anin
- Archer JJ.A
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Immigration law
1970
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case addresses the limitations of the judiciary concerning the rights of aliens. The Constitution grants parity of legal rights to aliens and citizens in certain areas but withholds such parity in others. The judiciary, bound by the Constitution, must respect these limitations and cannot operate above the Constitution. The court cannot grant rights to aliens that are expressly withheld by the Constitution, nor can it substitute its political judgment for that of the Executive and Legislature, especially in matters of foreign relations.
EXTRACT FROM RULING: The constitution as the fundamental law of the land has demarcated the arrears of operation of the three organs of state, i.e. the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary, and the judiciary which has the duty to interpret and enforce the Constitution is just as subject to the law as any other organ of state, and it (that is the judiciary) cannot, in upholding the Constitution, operate above it. We are here dealing with the rights of aliens, not of citizens. The constitution has in many areas accorded to aliens parity of legal rights with citizens, but has deliberately withheld parity in other areas. One such area in the latter category is the one covered by article 24 (another will be found in article 25(5)). The court, however much it may sympathize with the plaintiff in his predicament, cannot set itself above the constitution and concede what the constitution has withheld. The exercise of the power of the Executive and of the Legislature over aliens is inextricably intertwined with the conduct of the State’s relations with foreign countries, and the conduct of foreign relations is peculiarly within the province of what are called the political departments of state, i.e. the Executive and the Legislature (vide article 57 of the constitution). Any argument that places the courts in a situation in which they may have to substitute their political judgment for that of the Executive and the Legislature is wholly unacceptable, for any such act of substitution on the part of the court can only have the effect of gravely undermining the very constitution which the courts are called upon to guard, and to which they owe their judicial power.”