DAFEAMEKPOR ROCKSON-NELSON v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL

AMEGATCHER JSC:-

The facts culminating in the plaintiff's current action are straightforward, uncomplicated, and agreed upon. They are that on 11th January 2021, the President issued a directive with reference SCR/DA39/314/401 to all Metropolitan, Municipal and District Chief Executives (MMDCEs) who were in office before the presidential inauguration on 7th January 2021 to remain at post until further notice. The directive also prohibited the MMDCEs from making policy-related decisions in line with Section 14(5) of Act 843.

The Plaintiff, claiming that the directive breaches the fundamental law of the land, issued this writ invoking the Original Jurisdiction of this Court in accordance with Articles 2(1)(b) and 130(1)(a) of the Constitution, 1992, seeking an interpretation and enforcement of Articles 243(1) and 246(2) of the Constitution.

Summary of Plaintiff’s Case

The plaintiff’s case is that the directive issued by the President of the Republic of Ghana, under article 243 (3), directing all MMDCEs to continue in office is unconstitutional. The plaintiff asserts that, since the said directive was issued under article 243 (3), it can be reasonably inferred that the President purported to exercise his power under article 243(3) (b) to remove from office all MMDCEs who were at post immediately before the issuance of the said directive. Having removed them, they were, per the directive, to remain in office until further notice. The plaintiff argues that the office of MMDCEs is specifically provided for under Chapter 20 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana. As such, matters regarding the appointments, tenure, emoluments and removal from office must comply with the constitutional provisions to be valid. The plaintiff also argues that article 243 (1) provides that the President shall appoint the District Chief Executives (DCEs) with the prior approval of not less than two thirds majority of members of the Assembly present and voting at the meeting. The plaintiff further argues that article 246 (2) provides that unless the MMDCE resigns or dies or ceases to hold office under clause (3) of article 243, the term of office is four years and shall not hold office for more than two consecutive terms.

The plaintiff again asserts that the concept of acting MMDCEs is alien to the 1992 Constitution and must not be countenanced by this Court. Article 243 (1) of the constitution makes the prior approval by members of the Assembly a condition precedent to the appointments