2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of requiring a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) to file a case in court as per the Revenue Administration Act, 2016 (Act 915). The Center for Juvenile Delinquency challenged this provision, claiming it restricts access to the courts, a fundamental human right. The court agreed, finding that the requirement unconstitutionally restricts access to justice. The provisions in question (paragraphs 1(9) and 2(8)) were struck down on grounds of being an unreasonable restriction on the right to access the law courts, failing the proportionality test, and conflicting with various constitutional articles ensuring unimpeded access to justice. The Supreme Court's decision reiterated the importance of unobstructed access to the judiciary as a cornerstone of fundamental human rights.
JUDGEMENT
ADINYIRA (MRS), JSC: -
INTRODUCTION
My Lords, this delivery which happens to be my valedictory judgment after nearly 30 years on the bench with 13 years on the Supreme Court Bench, addresses a ‘fundamental prerequisite to the full enjoyment of fundamental human rights,’ that is the right of access to the courts. I have always believed the Judiciary would aspire to enforce legislation, but where legislative abridgement of human rights and freedoms is asserted, then, the court should be astute to examine the effect of the challenged legislation.
The Plaintiff, the Center for Juvenile Delinquency, is a Ghanaian Non-Governmental Organization; the Ghana Revenue Authority is sued as the 1st Defendant being the authority in charge of the administration and collection of the country’s revenue and the Attorney General has been made the 2rd Defendant as the principal legal advisor to the government.
The challenge by the Plaintiff is in respect of the provision in the Revenue Administration Act, 2016, (Act 915) to the effect that: a person shall not be permitted to file a case with the Courts or conduct any official business with them unless that person quotes the Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) issued to that person by the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff’s concern is that this requirement under Act 915 is in breach of the letter and spirit of the Constitution as it places a fetter on the right to access the courts.
Both Defendants brushed aside the plaintiff’s claims as unfounded and said the requirement of a TIN is merely regulatory and not a fetter, as obtaining a TIN comes with no cost or delay. The 2nd Defendant submitted further that the Plaintiff’s claim was unfounded, unsubstantiated and not justiciable.
My Lords, is the Plaintiff making a mountain out of a molehill as the Defendants are telling this Court? Or is the Plaintiff raising a fundamental issue on the rights of the ordinary citizen to be able to access the courts freely and unhindered?
FACTS OF THE CASE
In 2016 Parliament passed the Revenue Administration Act, (Act 915), which came into force on 10th August, 2016. Section 10 of Act 915 required the Commissioner-General to maintain a system of Taxpayer identification number; and Tax clearance certificates, for the purpose of identification of taxpayers and promoting tax compliance. Section 11 of Act 915 requires that:
1. A person shall show the Taxpayer Identification Number of that person in any claim, declaration, notice, ret