2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff contested sections of the Ghana Revenue Authority Act, 2009, claiming they were unconstitutional. The court dismissed the action, affirming that integrating CEPS into GRA did not breach constitutional provisions and that the Commissioner-General of GRA lawfully replaced the Commissioner of CEPS. The court upheld the importance of a broad, purposive approach to constitutional interpretation and confirmed that CEPS remains part of the Public Services, unaffected by the legislative changes.
JUDGMENT
ATUGUBA JSC:
By his writ dated 30/10/2012 the plaintiff claims as follows:
“1. A declaration that sections 17 and 30(5) read together with No. 10 in the Schedule on consequential amendments and repeals] of the Ghana Revenue Authority Act, 2009 (Act 791) contravene or are inconsistent with article 190(1)(a) of the Constitution, and therefore are null, void and of no effect to the extent that the said sections of Act 791 purport to collapse the Customs, Excise and Preventive Service (CEPS) into an integrated authority called the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA);
2. A declaration that sections 17(b), 30(3) and (5) of the Ghana Revenue Authority Act, 2009 (Act 791) as applied to CEPS contravene or are inconsistent with 107 (a) read together with article 2(1) of the Constitution, and therefore are null, void and of no effect to the extent that the Ghana Revenue Authority Act, 2009 (Act 791), particularly sections 17 (b), 30(3) and (5) thereof, is used as the basis for allowing or permitting CEPS employees to unionize;
3. A declaration that section 30(3) of Act 791 contravenes or is inconsistent with articles 8(2)(e), 83(j), 289 and/or 290(1)(f) of the Constitution, and therefore same is null, void and of no effect to the extent that the said section 30(3) of Act 791 purports to substitute in an enactment (and this includes the 1992 Constitution) the Commissioner-General of the Ghana Revenue Authority for the Commissioner of CEPS;
4. Any further or other consequential orders as this Honorable Court may deem fit for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the above provisions of the 1992 Constitution.
The issues for trial as per the plaintiff’s memorandum of issues dated 3/1/2014 are as follows:
“1. Whether or not upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 190(1) (a) of the Constitution Parliament is entitled to integrate any of the Services specified therein without recourse to an express and specific amendment pursuant to article 289 of the said Article 190(1)(a) of the Constitution to so permit any such integration;
2. Whether or not by purporting to convert the Customs, Excise and Preventive Service into a department of the Ghana Revenue Authority without an express amendment of Article 190(1) of the Constitution, sections 17 and 30(5) [read together with No. 10 in the Schedule on consequential amendments and repeals] of the Ghana Revenue Authority Act contravene Article 190(1) (a) of the Constitution;
3. Whether or not by purpor