March 31, 2022
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Former employees of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) brought an original jurisdiction suit seeking constitutional declarations and orders to require that CHRAJ pensions and gratuities be paid from the Consolidated Fund rather than the Social Security Pension Fund, and to bar the Ministry of Finance from insisting on financial clearance before CHRAJ recruitment. They relied on Article 227, Article 178(1)(a), and precedents including Brown v Attorney‑General and Ampiah Ampofo v CHRAJ. The Supreme Court, per Amadu JSC in a majority opinion joined by the Chief Justice Yeboah and Justices Dotse, Dordzie, Kotey and Mensa‑Bonsu, held that the cited constitutional provisions were clear and unambiguous, and that the Plaintiffs’ enforcement reliefs were dependent on non‑existent interpretative controversies. Concluding that its exclusive original jurisdiction had not been properly invoked, the Court dismissed the action. Torkornoo JSC dissented, finding jurisdiction properly invoked but also rejecting the Plaintiffs’ interpretation on the merits.
MAJORITY OPINION
AMADU JSC:-
1.By writ issued on 25th September 2020, the Plaintiffs sought to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court for the interpretation and enforcement of some provisions of the 1992 Constitution. The reliefs indorsed on the writ are as follows:
“ a)A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of articles
178(1)(a), and 227 of the Constitution (1992) the pensions and gratituties of retired officers and employees of CHRAJ must be paid from the Consolidated Fund and no other Fund or Pension schemes established by an act of Parliament.
b) A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of articles
178(1)(a),and 227 of the Constitution (1992) the payment of Pensions and gratituties of retired officers and employees of CHRAJ under the Social Security Fund instead of the Consolidated Fund as provided for by the Constitution (1992) is unconstitutional.
c) A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of articles
178(1) (a), and 227 the Constitution, (1992) it is unconstitutional for the Ministry of Finance, and Controller and Accountant-General to place retired offices of CHRAJ on the Social Security Pension Scheme instead of the Consolidated Fund.
d) A declaration that the Minister of Finance and the Controller and
Accountant-General in deducting pension contributions from salaries of employees of CHRAJ as members of the Social Security Pension Fund is inconsistent with article 178(1) (a), and article 227 of the Constitution (1992) and therefore null and void.
e) A declaration that all pensions and gratutities paid by the
Plaintiff’s to social security Fund contravenes articles 178(1)(a), and 227 of the Constitution (1992) and therefore unconstitutional, unlawful, null and void.
f) A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of articles
225, and 226 of the Constitution (1992), CHRAJ does not require any financial clearance from the Ministry of Finance before recruiting any person as staff.
g) A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of articles
225, and 226 of the Constitution (1992), the insistence by the Ministry of Finance for the Commission to seek financial clearance before recruitment is unconstitutional.
h) A declaration that the refusal by the Controller and Accountant-
General to place persons recruited under article 226 of the Constitution (1992) on the payroll of the Controller and Accountant-General because the Ministry of Finance has not given financial