GHANA CENTER FOR DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENT & ORS v. ATTORNEY-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