OKOFO SOBIN KAN II & ORS v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ORS

MAJORITY OPINIONS

ATUGUBA, JSC

Facts

In this case the five plaintiffs represent Ghanaian landowners, who share the common trait that mining companies have been extracting gold for the Republic of Ghana on their land. These companies include Anglo Gold Ashanti, Newmont Ghana Limited, and Goldfields Limited (“The Companies”).

At the moment the royalties from these mining operations are not paid to the landowners, but rather collected by government agencies. The Ghana Revenue Authority (the “GRA”), one of the Defendants in this case, serves the role of royalty collector for the minerals at issue here. However, the Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands, the institution charged by the Constitution and by the Administrator of Stool Lands Act, 1994 (“Act 481), is charged with establishing stool land Accounts, collection of royalties, and disbursing revenues due and payable.

In 1992 a fund was established to provide a portion of Government mineral royalties to host communities to support local development, address the negative effects of mining in the host communities, to supplement the budget of the mining sector institutions, and to fund research in the mining sector. Accordingly, 20% of the Government mineral royalties are paid into the fund to be managed by the Minerals Commission. The Commission was to disburse 50% of this revenue to fund development projects in the host communities, and 50% to District Assemblies, Stools, and traditional authorities in the ration of 50%/20%/20%.

The Plaintiffs believe that the Companies are required to pay royalties that, by definition and law, have to be paid to the owners of the lands on which they carry out their mining activities. Further, the royalties that the Companies pay to the Republic should and ought to go to the Plaintiffs, who hold the stool lands in trust for their subjects. Lastly, the Plaintiffs maintain that the GRA is unlawfully and unconstitutionally exercising the powers and functions reserved by the Constitution to the 2nd Defendant.

The issues in this case as per the parties memorandum of issues dated 7/5/2002 are as follows:

Whether or not the Plaintiffs have properly invoked the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and whether or not the Plaintiffs have taken advantage of the procedure prescribed for redress of grievances(s) over apportionment of rents, royalties, etc. under Section 8(2) of Act 481 before invoking the exclusive special, original jurisdiction of the Court.

Whether or not r