2024
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of provisions in the University of Ghana Act, 2010 (Act 806) and University's Statutes, arguing they were inconsistent with the 1992 Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the challenged provisions were not inconsistent with the Constitution, including the designation of the Chairperson of the University Council as a Principal Officer and the procedural steps for enacting Statutes which did not require compliance with article 11(7). The court also upheld the President's power to appoint certain members of the University Council while allowing other modes of appointments and representations. Consequently, both suits filed by the plaintiff were dismissed.
ADJEI-FRIMPONG JSC:
My Lords, this matter touches on the governance structure of the premier
university of the country, the University of Ghana. It is the 1st Defendant in
the matter. The plaintiff who initiated the action, describes himself as a
citizen of Ghana and a lawyer with some experience in higher education law
and policy. His plaint, put shortly, is that certain provisions of the University
of Ghana Act, 2010 Act (Act 806) which establishes the 1st Defendant, as well
as the entire Statutes of the University of Ghana by which the 1st Defendant
is governed are inconsistent with the 1992 Constitution and hence void.
Accordingly, in two separate suits in which he joins in the Attorney General
as 2nd defendant, he challenges the constitutionality of the said provisions of
the Act and the entirety of the Statutes. He invokes the original jurisdiction
of this Court under articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution to
launch the suits.
In the first writ filed on 19th March 2018 intituled; Solomon Faakye (Plaintiff) v
University of Ghana (1st Defendant) Attorney General (2nd Defendant) Suit No.
J1/10 2018, which was subsequently amended pursuant to leave granted by
this court on 8th November 2018, (the second amendment), he sought the
following reliefs:
A. A declaration that Section 5 of the 1st Defendant’s Act (806) which
designates the Chairperson of the University Council as Principal
Officer and further gives her power to act in the absence of the
Chancellor who is the Head of the 1st Defendant, when the Chairperson
is not appointed by the University but by the President of the Republic
is inconsistent with article 195(3) and article 285 of the Constitution
and consequently void and of no effect.
B. A Declaration that the Statutes of the 1st Defendant being a set of rules
made pursuant to Section 33 of Act 806 ought to have been laid before
parliament and published in the Gazette in compliance with article
11(7) of the Constitution and having not followed that procedure, its
purported entry into force under Section 55 of the Statutes of 1st
Defendant is void and of no effect.
Or in the alternative to (Bi), (Bii) as follows:
B(ii). A Declaration that 1st Defendant having failed to comply with article
11(7) was bound to comply with article 296(c) of the Constitution in the
exercise of her discretion to make Statutes and having failed to comply,
1st Defendant is in breach of the Constitution and thus the Statutes