May 31, 2023
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Several Ghanaian civil society organisations brought an original action before the Supreme Court challenging directives issued from the Presidency in late June and early July 2020 compelling Auditor‑General Daniel Yaw Domelevo to take accumulated annual leave and designating Deputy Auditor‑General Johnson Akuamoah Asiedu to act as Auditor‑General. The Presidency invoked the Labour Act, a claimed 2009 precedent by President John Evans Atta Mills, and Article 297(a) disciplinary power to justify the directive. Domelevo sought reconsideration, and AFROSAI‑E and INTOSAI expressed concern. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs properly invoked its exclusive original jurisdiction and, declining to dismiss core questions as moot because they were capable of repetition, grounded its analysis in separation of powers and the functional independence of independent constitutional offices. It held the leave directive unconstitutional as a constructive removal contrary to Articles 146 and 187(7)(a) and rejected reliance on Article 297(a) as disciplinary control over the Auditor‑General. The Court further held that the President cannot appoint or designate an Acting Auditor‑General while the office is not vacant, granting reliefs a–d and dismissing injunction‑related reliefs e–g as moot due to Domelevo’s retirement and the appointment of a substantive Auditor‑General.
AMEGATCHER JSC:-
INTRODUCTION
The plaintiffs are civil society organisations (CSOs) respectively incorporated under the laws of Ghana. The plaintiffs issued the present writ on the 26th day of October 2020, invoking the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under articles 2 (1) and 130 (1) of the Constitution for the interpretation and enforcement of articles 70 (1) (b) and 71(1), 187 (3), (5), (7) (a), (8), (12), and (13) and Article 297(a) of the Constitution 1992, of Ghana. The writ, in effect, questions the constitutionality of a directive issued from the office of the Presidency, requesting the Auditor-General to proceed on his accumulated leave with immediate effect and subsequent appointment or designation of Johnson Akuamoah Aseidu as Acting Auditor-General.
The plaintiffs are seeking the following reliefs per their writ:
a)A Declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 70(1)(b), 71(1), 187(3), (5), (7)(a), (8), (12) and 297(a) of the 1992 Constitution, the directive issued by or on behalf of the President on or between 29th June 2020 and 3rd July, 2020 instructing the Auditor-General to proceed on “accumulated” leave with effect from 1st July, 2020 for a prescribed number of days determined by the President, are void and of no legal effect, because the said directives are inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the aforementioned provisions of the Constitution as they improperly interfere with the independence and functions of the Auditor-General.
b)A Declaration that the purported appointment or designation by or on behalf of the President on 30th June 2020 of one Mr Johnson Akuamoah Aseidu as “Acting Auditor-General” is void and of no legal effect, as the said appointment stands contrary to Articles 70(1)(b), 187(3) and (7) of the 1992 Constitution as well as the Second Schedule to the Constitution.
c)A Declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 70(1)(b), 187(3) of the Constitution, the power to appoint, authorize or designate a person or persons to exercise a power or perform a function constitutionally assigned to the Auditor-General is vested solely in the Auditor-General; therefore, the purported appointment of a person as ‘Acting Auditor-General’ and subsequent performance of the functions of the Auditor-General violated the letter and spirit of the aforementioned provisions of the Constitution and are void and without any legal effect whatsoever.
d)A Declaration that on a t