EZUAME MANNAN v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ANOR
2022
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)
- DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC
- AMEGATCHER JSC
- PROF. KOTEY JSC
- AMADU JSC
- PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC
- KULENDI JSC
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
2022
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Invoking the Supreme Courts exclusive original jurisdiction, a Plaintiff challenged Parliaments late insertion of Section 43 into the Narcotics Control Commission Act, 2020 (Act 1019). Section 43 authorizes the Minister for the Interior, upon the Commissions recommendation, to license cultivation of cannabis with not more than 0.3% THC for industrial fibre/seed and medicinal purposes, expressly excluding recreational use. The Plaintiff alleged violations of Article 106s procedural requirements and inconsistency with Ghanas international obligations and Directive Principles. The Attorney-General defended parliamentary autonomy and argued that Article 106(6) permits amendments and that the Single Convention allows limited cannabis cultivation. Writing for the majority, Kulendi JSC emphasized constitutional supremacy over parliamentary procedure, rejected the enrolled bill doctrine, and held that the absence of transparent, substantive debate and explanatory basis for such a significant policy shift violated the letter and spirit of Article 106. The Court struck down Section 43 as unconstitutional, while rejecting the Article 40/treaty and intra-statute inconsistency grounds. Dissenting opinions by Amadu, Amegatcher, and Prof. Kotey would have upheld Section 43.
MAJORITY OPINION
KULENDI JSC:-
“My own contribution to the evaluation of a Constitution is that, a Constitution is the outpouring of the soul of the nation and its precious life-blood is its spirit. Accordingly, in interpreting the Constitution we fail in our duty if we ignore its spirit. Both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution are essential fulcra which provide the leverage in the task of interpretation. In support of this, we may profitably turn to the Constitution, 1992 itself which directs that we accord due recognition to the spirit that pervades its provisions.”
– François JSC, New Patriotic Party v Attorney-General [1993-94] 2 GLR 35 at page 79.
INTRODUCTION
This writ invokes the exclusive original jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to Articles 2(1) and 130(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Plaintiff brings this action seeking the following reliefs;
1.A declaration that Section 43 of the Narcotics Control Commission Act, Act 1019, is null and void on account of having been passed in a manner that is inconsistent with, in excess of, and in contravention of the powers conferred on Parliament under Articles 106(2)(a), (b), 106(5), (6) of the 1992 Constitution.
2.A declaration that Section 43 of the Narcotics Control Commission Act, Act 1019, is null and void on account of being inconsistent with, and in contravention of Ghana’s obligations under Article 40(c) of the 1992 Constitution.
3.A declaration that Section 43 of the Narcotics Control Commission Act, Act 1019, is null and void on account of being inconsistent with, and in contravention of the intent, purpose and directions of the Directive Principles of State Policy as provided for in Article 35(2), Article 36(9) and Article 36(10).
4.A declaration that Section 43 of the Narcotics Control Commission Act, Act 1019, is null and void on account of being inconsistent with the letter, intent and purpose of all other provisions of Act 1019 and especially, Sections 2(c), 3, 38, 39, 41, 42, 42(4), 45, 48, 53, 54, 55, 93 and the Sixth Schedule.
5.Such further or other orders as the Honorable Supreme Court will deem fit to make.
BACKGROUND
Ghana became a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in 1988. In addition, Ghana became a party to the Single Convention on Narcotics Drugs of 1961 as amended by the 1972 protocol in 1991. These treaties govern the obligations of state parties in relation to narcotics and ot