Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
KOTEY, JSC:-
On 5th February, 2020, this Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s action in this matter on the grounds that its original jurisdiction has not been properly invoked and that the case lacked any merit, with reasons to be given later. We proceed to give our reasons.
On 4th October, 2017, Plaintiff instituted this action pursuant to articles 2 and 130 of the 1992 Constitution, invoking the original jurisdiction of this court for an interpretation and enforcement of articles 18 and 19 (2)(c) of the 1992 Constitution.
The reliefs sought were a declaration that:
i. Section 23(2) of the Economic and Organised Crime Act, 2010 Act 804, is inconsistent with articles 18 and 19 (2)(c) of the 1992 Constitution.
ii. On a true and proper interpretation of articles 18 and 19(2) (c), citizen’s property cannot be confiscated or forfeited to the state unless the citizen has been convicted of a serious offence that has a direct nexus with the affected property.
iii. Forfeiture of the funds to the state by the 1st Defendant pursuant to section 23(3) of the Economic and Organised Crime Office, 2010 (Act 804) contravenes articles 18 and 19(2) (c) of the 1992 Constitution to the extent that such application for forfeiture was made ex parte.
iv. The said funds forfeited to the state be released to their respective owners; Tweneboah Koduah, Nana Frimpong, Nii Nueh Odonkor, Jesse Amissah Turkson and Florence Kotey, forthwith as same were inconsistent with the 1992 Constitution.
v. All funds forfeited to the state pursuant to section 23(2) Act 804 and so procured through ex parte applications be released to its original owners as same is inconsistent with Articles 18 and 19 (2)(c).
The plaintiff is therefore seeking to invoke the original jurisdiction of this court to interpret and enforce the 1992 Constitution pursuant to articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the Constitution.
The gravamen of the Plaintiff’s complaint is that section 23 of the Economic and Organised Crime Act, 2010 Act (804) is inconsistent with articles 18 and 19(2)(c).
MEMORANDUM OF ISSUES
We dismissed this action because we were of the considered view that original jurisdiction to interpret or enforce the Constitution has not been properly invoked in this case.
This matter has already been determined by this court in Jesse Amissah, Florence Kotey & Hon. Mavis Hawa Koomson v. The Executive Director, Economic and Organised Crime Office and Attorney-General, writ No. J1/10/2016, Judgment dated 5th December