November 30, 2022
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
A citizen sued the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) and another defendant in the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction, seeking declarations that many provisions of the Revenue Administration Act, 2016 (Act 915) confer powers tantamount to judicial authority, allegedly inconsistent with the 1992 Constitution. The plaintiff cited an extensive list of sections and invoked the Preamble, Articles 1, 2, 125 and Chapters 5 and 6, but he did not link specific statutory provisions to particular constitutional provisions. The parties framed issues on whether the jurisdiction was properly invoked and whether the cited sections were unconstitutional. Applying the presumption of constitutionality, severability, and strict requirements of particularity, the Court held the reliefs largely failed to raise genuine constitutional interpretation or enforcement questions. Addressing certain reliefs, the Court found Section 56s limited travel restraint, Section 88s magistrateorder requirement, Section 92s burden allocation, and Section 93s nonautomatic stay to be constitutional. All reliefs were refused.
TORKORNOO (MRS.) JSC:-
THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE
The plaintiff commenced the action by Writ accompanied by a Statement of his case. He presented no background documentation verified by affidavit. In paragraph 4 of the Statement of case filed with the Writ, the plaintiff set out the capacity in which he brought the action and stated that the action was commenced to ostensibly seek an alignment of the ‘far-reaching powers’ given to the Ghana Revenue Authority in its administration of tax levied on citizens with, the directions of the 1992 Constitution.
It reads:
4. The Plaintiff brings this action as a citizen of Ghana to challenge the awesome and far-reaching powers which practically gives judicial power to the 1st defendant in the Revenue Administration Act, 2016 (Act 915) and in some instances enables it to have powers over and above that of the courts in a manner clearly subversive of and inconsistent with the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.
He continued with the general premise of these contentions in Paragraph 5.
5. The plaintiff states that both the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana are breached by the enormous and unfettered power granted the 1st defendant by virtue of Act 915.
The plaintiff went in paragraph 5 to quote the Preamble of the Constitution, and Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution.
In Paragraph 6, plaintiff slightly expanded on the general premise of his suit and stated:
6. The plaintiff states that both the letter and spirit of the 1992 of Ghana are breached by the enormous powers given the 1st defendant which makes it wield powers greater than the courts of Ghana who have exclusive judicial power under the 1992 Constitution of Ghana
Paragraph 7 specifically identified particular sections of Act 915 which allegedly grant the impugned power to the 1st defendant. These add up to thirty nine sections of Act 915. It states
7. The plaintiff states that amongst other powers of the 1st defendant are the following as set out in the under listed sections of Act 915:
Section 31
Section 41-45
Section 51-57
Section 70- 96
In paragraph 10, the plaintiff quoted Article 125 of the 1992 Constitution which directs that justice is to be administered by the Judiciary which shall be independent and subject only to the Constitution.
Despite these positions stated early in the Statement of case, the identification of thirty-nine sections of Act 915 and Articles 1, 2(1) and 125 of the Constitution that plaintiff sets out as being