2020
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Supreme Court decision resolves a constitutional question referred by the Court of Appeal concerning whether the Chinery Hesse Committee (CHC), established by the President under Article 71, could recommend pensions for former Members of Parliament. The plaintiffs, being ex-MPs, sought payment of pensions the CHC had recommended, noting that other CHC benefits were paid and that the Attorney-General and prior governments had directed the Controller and Accountant-General to pay. The defendants argued pensions for MPs lack constitutional backing, citing the Yamson and Ewurama Addy committees’ omission of pensions and the absence of presidential approval for CHC’s report. Applying a holistic reading of the 1992 Constitution, the Court held Article 114(1) provides only gratuity to MPs on cessation, and Article 71(3) yields to specific contrary provisions; thus, the CHC exceeded its mandate. The Court emphasized headings (as signposts) and reinforced its interpretation with analogous provisions for the Speaker and Justices and consistency with the 1969 and 1979 constitutions.
GBADEGBE, JSC:-
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:
“Whether on the combined reading of the constitutional provisions, we
have alluded to and referred to by the parties, i.e. Articles 71(3), 98(1),
114 and 295, it was constitutional for the CHC to have recommended
payment of pension to the plaintiffs? “
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
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 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.
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, observed at page 1165 as
follows:
“But to begin with, it is important to remind ourselves that we are dealing
with our national constitution, not an ordinary Act of Parli