2024
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, exercising its exclusive original jurisdiction, was asked by a citizen-plaintiff to declare unconstitutional the passage of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024 on the ground that the Speaker of Parliament had failed to comply with Article 108, which bars private members’ bills that impose a financial burden on public funds. The Court held unanimously that its power of judicial review is directed at enacted laws, not bills still undergoing the legislative process. Because the bill had not yet received presidential assent, the action was premature. The Court further found that Article 108 does not mandate a formal fiscal-impact study or a particular mode for the Speaker’s opinion; by allowing the bill to proceed, the Speaker is presumed to have complied with his constitutional duty. Consequently, all the plaintiff’s reliefs were dismissed.
<u>ADJEI-FRIMPONG, JSC: </u>
My Lords, a while ago, we delivered this Court’s unanimous decision in the case of RICHARD SKY VRS THE PARLIAMENT & ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Writ No. J1/09/2024 (RICHARD SKY). That case, on account of the reliefs sought therein, spanned a broader subject spectrum. Nonetheless, it arose from the same factual background and also gave rise to a quest almost the same as what is to be seen in this case. By reason of the commonality of facts and the similarity of issue(s) in both suits, the option of delivering a composite judgment to cover both suits was on table to consider. We have however decided to deliver a separate reasoning for this case for some material considerations which we wish to put on record.
First, the parties in the suits are not exactly the same. Whereas, in Richard Sky, the Plaintiff is obviously different and the House of Parliament itself was joined as a Defendant, here the Speaker is joined as 1st Defendant and the reliefs claimed appear to be against him qua Speaker. Second, the reliefs the Plaintiff seeks are couched in words that appear to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction on separate juridical grounds. Finally, we think the exclusive original jurisdiction of this Court being special and unique, it will be just and convenient to allow the cases to fully bear their separate identities from cradle to grave. It will, in our view, better serve the interest of the parties and that of the public if we proceed this way.
Similar to Richard Sky, this suit is to put to test, our subscription to the principle of separation of powers in the context of the 1992 Constitution. In a sense the dispute turns on the ambit of this Court’s judicial review power over legislative acts. When all is said and done, the threshold question we shall determine is the extent to which this Court’s power of judicial review applies to strike down a Bill passed by Parliament which is yet to become law.
By the way, Article 58(1) of the Constitution vests the executive power of the State thus:
“The executive authority of Ghana shall vest in the President and shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The legislative authority of Ghana is also vested in Parliament under Article 93(2) which provides that: "Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the legislative power of Ghana shall be vested in Parliament in accordance with this Constitution". Finally, whereas Article 1