2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiffs, invoking the court's original jurisdiction, sought declarations regarding the constitutionality of the forfeiture and confiscation of their properties without being charged or convicted of crimes. The court's majority opinion held that the plaintiffs failed to properly invoke its jurisdiction, while the dissenting opinions emphasized the need for constitutional interpretation and enforcement to protect property rights and ensure fair trial procedures.
MAJORITY OPINION
AKAMBA, JSC
The three Plaintiffs herein, filed an amended writ on 5th February 2016, invoking this court’s original jurisdiction under articles 2, 18, 19 (2) (c), 19 (10), and 130 of the Constitution 1992 and Rule 45 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996, (CI 16) seeking the following reliefs, namely:
A declaration that:
On a true and proper interpretation of Article 19 (2) (c) of the 1992 Constitution, a person’s property cannot be forfeited or confiscated to the state when that person has not been tried and convicted of a crime regarding the property.
On a true and proper interpretation of Article 18 of the 1992 Constitution, a person’s property cannot be forfeited or confiscated to the state by an ex-parte motion praying for same.
On a true and proper interpretation of Article 18 of the 1992 Constitution, unless confiscations proceedings as provided for under sections 45, 46, 47, 50 and 51 of the Economic and Organised Crime Act, 2010, (Act 804) are complied with, a person’s property/assets cannot be confiscated or forfeited to the state.
On a true and proper interpretation of Article 18 of the 1992 Constitution, only tainted property can be confiscated to the state and only a Court of competent jurisdiction can deem a property to be tainted after trial has been concluded regarding that property.
On a true and proper interpretation of Article 19 (2) (c) and Article 19 (10) of the 1992 Constitution, the non-availability of a person to assist in investigations does not make him guilty of a serious offence, even more so when investigations to establish that a serious offence has been committed yielded no evidence of probative value.
That on a true and proper interpretation of Article 19 (2) (c) and 18 of the 1992 Constitution, the order of the High Court Financial Division given by His Lordship Bright Mensah dated 31st January 2013 forfeiting the funds of the 1st Plaintiff to the state when he had not been charged with any serious offence let alone convicted for same by a court of competent jurisdiction is null and void and of no legal effect.
That on a true and proper interpretation of Article 19 (2) (c) and Article 18 of the 1992 Constitution, the order of the High Court (Financial Division) dated 7th March, 2013 given by His Lordship Bright Mensah seizing and forfeiting the funds of the 2nd Plaintiff to the State when she had not been charged with any serious offence let alone convicted of same by a court of competent jurisdiction