2018
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per N. S. Gbadegbe JSC, entertained a constitutional reference from the High Court seeking interpretation of article 146(10)(b) on suspension of Superior Court judges and article 155(1) concerning pension entitlements. The matter arose after a High Court judge was interdicted in May 2005 by the Judicial Secretary following criminal charges alleging dishonesty, never resumed duty, retired on 31 December 2011 without impeachment, and was convicted on 19 July 2013. Applying a harmonious and purposive reading of the Constitution, the Court held that disciplinary control is not confined to impeachment: acting on the appointing authority’s implied powers under article 297(a), the Chief Justice may interdict a judge, with official acts enjoying an Evidence Act section 37 presumption of regularity. On pensions, the Court emphasized article 139(4)’s demand for high moral character and proven integrity; the conviction severed continuous service retroactively and rendered the judge ineligible for pension and gratuity under article 155(1). The Court distinguished Justice Frank Amoah v Attorney-General and found section 298 of Act 30 inapplicable to retired Superior Court judges.
JUDGMENT
GBADEGBE JSC:
We have before us in the exercise of our jurisdiction under article (2) of the Constitution, a reference calling for the interpretation mainly of article 140 (10) (b) of the constitution and a related provision concerning the entitlement of superior court judges to pension in terms of article 155 (1). We wish to note at the outset that although the ruling by which our reference jurisdiction has been invoked specifies in the concluding paragraph only the issue relating to the true meaning of article 146(10) (b) of the constitution there is an implied invitation to us to pronounce on the true meaning of article 155 of the Constitution as well. In our opinion, as the interpretation of provisions of the constitution belongs exclusively to this court, it is important that once we discern from the process by which our jurisdiction under clause 2 of article 130 is invoked that some other provision of the Constitution though not specifically mentioned in the order of reference is either so closely linked with the provision of the constitution referred to us for interpretation or from the circumstances of the case likely to become an interpretative issue before the trial court, then in order to avoid multiple references, we are required at the very first opportunity to make a binding pronouncement of the said provision as well. Thus, in the matter herein, we propose to exercise our jurisdiction by way of reference on the true meaning of articles 146 (10) (b) and 155(1) of the Constitution.
We commence our determination with reference to the two provisions. Article 146 (10) (b) of the constitution states:
“Where a petition has been referred to a committee under this article, the President may, in the case of a Justice of the Superior Court or a of a Chairman of a Regional Tribunal acting in accordance with the advice of the Judicial Council, suspend that Justice or Chairman of a Regional Tribunal.”
In respect of article 155(1), it is provided as follows:
“Notwithstanding the provisions of this Chapter, a Justice of the Superior Court who has attained the age of sixty-five years or above, shall, on retiring, in addition to any gratuity payable to him, be paid a pension equal to the salary payable for the time being to a Justice of a Superior Court from which he retired where-
(a) He has served for ten continuous years or more as a Justice of the Superior court of Judicature, or
(b) He has served for twenty years or more in the public se