2015
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The consolidated cases address whether the Speaker of Parliament must take the Presidential oath whenever assuming Presidential duties due to the absence of both the President and Vice-President. The court affirmed that the Speaker must subscribe to the oath each time and that failure to do so constitutes a violation of his oath of office. Allegations of high crime were deemed improper for the court to determine in these proceedings. Additionally, the court ruled that the Speaker was improperly joined to one of the actions, as such matters fall under the responsibility of the Attorney-General. The decision reinforces the necessity of oath-taking as a condition for assuming Presidential functions under the Constitution.
GBADEGBE JSC:
The questions for our decision in the consolidated actions herein by which our interpretive and enforcement jurisdiction is sought arises out of the refusal by the Speaker of Parliament (hereinafter conveniently referred to as the Speaker), to subscribe to the oath of the President when both the President and the Vice- President were out of the country on November 5, 2014 and November 7, 2014 respectively. Subsequently, the plaintiffs in the consolidated actions, at different times caused the writs herein numbered as J1/4/2015 and J1/20/2015 to issue seeking reliefs, which concern the said refusal. At the hearing of the respective actions, in view of the fact that they raised common questions for our decision and arise from the same transaction, we made an order consolidating them for trial. In making the order of consolidation, we were guided by Order 31 rule 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) of 2004, (CI 47) by which it is provided:
……“Where two or more causes or matters are pending in the same Court and it appears to the Court
(a) That some common question of law or fact arises in both or all of them, or
(b) That the rights to relief claimed are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions or
(c) That for some other reason it is desirable to make an order under this rule……”
The said common questions of law are the true meaning of article 60 (11) and (12) of the 1992 Constitution. Beyond this question, we have to decide other questions, which though turning on the said refusal are not common to both actions. One such question is whether the Speaker has violated his oath of office; the other being whether he is a necessary and proper party in suit number J1/4/2015.As the questions for determination arise from the same act, we are obliged to dispose of the common questions of law or rights to relief claimed in both actions at the same time. See: (1) Daws v Daily Sketch and Sunday Graphic Ltd [1960] 1 All ER 397; (2) Beardsall v Cheetham,(1858) EB & E 243.
The plaintiff in suit number J1/4/ 2015 seeks the following reliefs:
(a) declaration that upon a true and proper construction and or interpretation of articles 60 (11) and 60 (12) of the Constitution of 1992 of the Republic of Ghana, the Speaker of Parliament shall, always, before assuming the functions of the President where the President and the Vice- President are unable to perform their functions, take and subscribe the oath set out in