OCCUPY GHANA v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
June 14, 2017
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
- AKUFFO (MS), JSC (PRESIDING)
- ADINYIRA (MRS), JSC
- DOTSE, JSC
- YEBOAH, JSC
- BAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC
- GBADEGBE, JSC
- BENIN, JSC
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
June 14, 2017
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this original-jurisdiction action brought by Occupy Ghana against the Attorney-General on behalf of the Auditor-General, the Supreme Court interpreted Article 187(7)(b) of the 1992 Constitution and held that the Auditor-Generals powers to disallow unlawful expenditures, surcharge responsible persons, bring sums duly into account, and recover losses from negligence or misconduct are mandatory duties, not discretionary. Rejecting the jurisdictional objection, the Court found enforcement and interpretation properly before it under Articles 2 and 130. The Court distinguished audit observations and management letters from the constitutional report to Parliament, outlined Act 584s Section 17 recovery roadmap and CI 102s appeal rules, and granted all reliefs, directing the Auditor-General to recover specified amounts and the Attorney-General to enforce, including through criminal prosecutions where appropriate.
DOTSE, JSC:-
Article 187 (7) (b) (i) (ii) and (iii) of the Constitution 1992, provides as follows:-
“In the performance of his functions under this Constitution or any other law the Auditor-General
(b) may disallow any item of expenditure which is contrary to law and surcharge
(i) the amount of any expenditure disallowed upon the person responsible for incurring or authorizing the expenditure; or
(ii) any sum which has not been duly brought into account, upon the person by whom the sum ought to have been brought into account; or
(iii) the amount of any loss or deficiency, upon any person by whose negligence or misconduct the loss or deficiency has been incurred.” Emphasis supplied.
Based on the above constitutional provisions referred to supra, the Plaintiffs claim the following reliefs against the Defendants before this court.
1. “That upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 187 (7) (b) (i) of the Constitution, the Auditor-General is bound to issue a disallowance or surcharge where there has been any item of expenditure on behalf of the Government that is contrary to law, so that the amount unlawfully expended is recovered from the person who was responsible for, or authorised, the expenditure disallowed.
2. That upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 187 (7) (b) (ii) of the Constitution, the Auditor-General is bound to issue a disallowance and surcharge where any person fails to bring any sum into the Government’s account, so that that amount is recovered from the person by whom the amount should have been brought into account.
3. That upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 187 (7) (b) (iii) of the Constitution, the Auditor-General is bound to issue a disallowance and surcharge where the Government suffers or incurs a loss or deficiency through the negligence or misconduct of any person, so that the value of the loss or deficiency is recovered from that person (whether or not a public servant).
4. That the failure, refusal or neglect by the Auditor-General to ever issue any disallowances and surcharges in respect of (i) unlawful items of expenditure, (ii) amounts not brought into account, and (iii) losses and deficiencies incurred through negligence and misconduct, as set out in successive Reports of the Auditor-General issued since the coming into force of the Constitution, are violations by the Auditor-General of his/her obligations under the Constitution and
5. That the Auditor-General be ordered to issue