Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
January 10, 1959
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT OF SMITH J.
(His Lordship stated the facts, and proceeded:-)
The Preventive Detention Act, 1958, is analogous to the Preventive Detention Regulations which were in force in Britain as a war-time measure, and the cases and authorities cited to me have almost entirely related to war-time detentions.
[p.3]
The Preventive Detention Order sets out that the Governor-General is satisfied that it is necessary to make the Detention Order in question. It was signed by the Minister of Defence: there is nothing against his signing this order, either in law or in the circumstances of this case.
The question of the necessity of making the order at all is not for the Court to consider (Progressive Supply Company Ltd. v. Dalton ([1943 Ch. 54)). It appears well established that where a statute requires only that a Minister shall be "satisfied" that certain action is necessary, the effect is "virtually to exclude all judicial review on the ground that Ministerial action taken under (such) authority is purely administrative" (Laws and Orders -Sir Carleton Kemp Allen). Many cases and authorities have been cited in support of this.
In Land Realization Co. Ltd. v. Postmaster-General ([1950] Ch. 435 at p.440) Lord Romer said, "It is well settled that where a statutory provision empowers a Minister to do something if he is satisfied with regard to a certain state of affairs, then a statement by him that he is so satisfied will be accepted in these Courts." Reference may be made also to the case of In re an Application by Beck and Pollitzer and others and in re the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945 ([1948] 2 K. B. 339); and to the case of Point of Ayr Collieries Ltd. v. Lloyd-George ((1943) 2 All E.R. 547).
In the case of Liversidge v. Anderson and anor. (1942) A.C. 206) the argument turned on the words used in the regulations, "If the Minister has reasonable cause to believe." Viscount Maugham, referring to certain regulations where the word "satisfied" was used, said: "In these cases it is conceded that there is no recourse to the court provided, of course, that the Secretary of State acts in good faith." Lord Atkin, who gave a dissenting judgment in that case, also referred to certain regulations where the word "satisfied" is used, in contrast to certain other regulations which used the words "reasonable cause." As regards the former he said, "In all these cases it is plain that unlimited discretion is given to the Secretary of State assuming, as
AI Generated Summary
Smith J addresses multiple habeas corpus applications by detainees held under the Preventive Detention Act, 1958. The Detention Order stated the Governor-General was satisfied detention was necessary and was signed by the Minister of Defence. The applicants alleged governmental bad faith, relying on a parliamentary debate and a press release noting prior convictions, and some contended misdescription, including an individual referred to as George Quarshie asserting his name is George Awuley Tetteh. The grounds of detention included alleged conspiracies to assassinate members of Government, poison Ga adherents of the Convention People’s Party in Accra, manufacture explosives, and overthrow the Government by force. Relying on UK wartime authorities (including Liversidge and Carltona), the court held that ministerial “satisfaction” precludes judicial review of necessity and confines review to legality. Bad faith was not proved; misdescription was immaterial without evidence; and criminal aspects of the grounds did not oust the Act’s reach. The applications were refused.