May 25, 2022
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per V. J. M. Dotse JSC writing for the majority, dismissed Stephen Kwabena Opuni’s original jurisdiction writ seeking declaratory and injunctive reliefs under Articles 19(1) and 19(2)(c) to expunge purported final findings in a High Court no-case ruling in the criminal trial Republic v Opuni & 2 Others. Opuni argued the ruling prejudged guilt and breached fair trial and presumption of innocence. The Attorney-General raised preliminary objections that the matter was an abuse of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, sought personal human rights enforcement reserved to the High Court, and was res judicata given a 4–3 review decision restoring the trial court’s rulings. Applying the Anin Doctrine, Henderson v Henderson, and res judicata principles, the Court upheld the objections, declined original jurisdiction, and dismissed the writ as incompetent and meritless. PWAMANG JSC dissented, contending that coupled interpretation and enforcement could be entertained and res judicata should not bar constitutional development.
MAJORITY OPINION
DOTSE JSC:-
PROLOGUE:-
We begin our decision in this case by referring extensively to the scholarly work of Prof. Kofi Kumado in his book, “ A Handbook of the Constitutional Law of Ghana and its History” from pages 282-284 as follows:-
“Finally, by way of emphasis, we note that the position of the Supreme Court on its constitutionality powers under Article 2 (1) and 130 (1), as it has crystallised since the coming into force of the 1992 Constitution, has been succinctly summarised by Justice Akuffo in the Bimpong Buta v General Legal Council & Others, [2003-2004] 2 SCGLR 1206 as follows:-
1.A person bringing an action under Article 2 of the Constitution 1992 need not demonstrate that he has any personal interest in the outcome of the suit, that he as a citizen of Ghana suffices to entitle him to bring the action (Tufuor v A.G. [1980] GLR, 637 SC and Sam (No.2) v A.G [2000] SCGLR 305).
2.The “person” referred to in the context of Article 2 includes both natural persons and corporate bodies (NPP v A.G. CIBA case, [1996-97] SCGLR 729).
3.The Supreme Court’s power of enforcement under Article 2 of the Constitution, 1992 by exercise of its original jurisdiction, does not cover the enforcement of the individual’s human rights provisions, that power by the terms of articles 33 (1) and 130 (1) of the Constitution 1992 is vested exclusively in the High Court (Edusei v A.G, [1998-99] SCGLR 1, Edusei (No. 2) v A.G. [1998-99] SCGLR, 753, Adjei-Ampofo v A.G [2003-2004] SCGLR 411).
4.Regardless of the manner in which they are clothed, where the real issues arising from a writ brought under Articles 2 or 130 (1) of the Constitution, 1992 are not, in actuality, of such character as to be determinable exclusively by the Supreme Court, but rather fall within a cause of action cognizable by any other court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction, this court will decline jurisdiction (Yiadom 1 v Amaniampong [1981] GLR 3, S.C, Ghana Bar Association v A.G. (Abban case) [2003-2004] SCGLR 250, Edusei No. 2 v A.G supra, Adumoa II v Twum II [2006] SCGLR 165.
In spite of the fact that the Anin Doctrine has been clearly endorsed by the Supreme Court under the 1992 Constitution, there have been some decisions or dicta of some members of the court which are not in consonance with it. (See dissenting opinion of Justice Atuguba in Osei Boateng v National Media Commission and Anr, [2012] 2 SCGLR 1038, National Media Commission v A.G. [2006]