MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & OTHERS

RULING

MAJORITY OPINIONS

AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS), JSC:

On the 21st of June 2013; the Ordinary Bench in a unanimous decision, entered judgment for the plaintiff/applicant hereinafter referred to as the applicant against the defendant/respondents here after simply referred to as respondents in these terms:

“In the result, the plaintiff succeeds in his action in part. The reliefs that this court should grant him are the following:

A declaration that:

a. On a true and proper interpretation of Article 181(3) and section 7 of the Loans Act , (ACT 335) the laying before and approval on 1st August 2005 of the terms and conditions of the Second Financial Protocol between the Republic of Ghana and the Kingdom of Spain for an amount of sixty-five million euro (£65,000,000) for the implementation of various development projects and programmes in Ghana did not negate the effect of Article 181 (5) of the 1992 Constitution that requires the further laying before and approval of any specific international business or economic transaction to which the Government is a party even if payment had to be made from the said loan approved by Parliament.

b. The Agreement between Isofoton S.A of Montalban 9th 28014, Madrid , Spain, a foreign registered company and the Ministry of Food and Agriculture of the Government of Ghana dated 22nd September 2005 for the execution of a project designated as “Solar PV Powered Water Pumping and Irrigation Systems in Remote Rural Areas of Ghana” is an international business or economic transaction within the meaning of Article 181 (5) of the 1992 Constitution and never became operative because it was not laid before and approved by Parliament and is accordingly null, void and without effect whatsoever.

c. The Agreement between Isofoton S. A of Montalban 9, 28014, Madrid, Spain, a foreign registered company and the Ministry of Energy of the Government of Ghana in 2001 for the execution of the “Solar Electrification Project in Ghana Phase II “ is an international business or economic transaction within the meaning of Article 181 (5) of the 1992 Constitution and never became operative because it was not laid before and approved by Parliament and is accordingly null, void and without effect whatsoever.

d. The High Court which heard and granted reliefs in two actions commenced by the 3rd defendant on behalf of the 2nd defendant in consolidated Suit Nos. BC23/2008 and BC24/2008 pursuant to the said international business or economic transaction whic