2024
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per a majority opinion authored by Justice I. O. Tanko Amadu, dismissed an original-jurisdiction action brought by former staff of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ). The plaintiffs sought declarations that their pensions and gratuities should be paid from the Consolidated Fund under Article 227, rather than the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) scheme, and they challenged the Ministry of Finance’s insistence on financial clearance for CHRAJ recruitment and payroll placement by the Controller and Accountant‑General. Raising a threshold question sua sponte, the Court decided its interpretative/enforcement jurisdiction had not been properly invoked because Articles 178(1)(a), 225, 226, and 227 were clear and unambiguous and the enforcement reliefs were not independently anchored in specific constitutional text. Justice Gertrude Torkornoo dissented, finding jurisdiction proper and reading Article 227 as covering only those serving with the Commission in performing its constitutional functions, but she also concluded the plaintiffs were not entitled to relief.
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 clea