2011
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mr. Sumaila Bielbiel sued Mr. Adamu Dramani and the Attorney General in the High Court seeking declarations and injunctions premised on Dramani’s alleged British passport and foreign allegiance disqualifying him from holding a parliamentary seat. After the Court of Appeal set aside the writ as an out-of-time election petition, Bielbiel invoked the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to enforce and interpret Articles 97(1)(e) and 94(2)(a). Dramani raised a preliminary objection, which the Supreme Court overruled; he then sought review, claiming the ruling was per incuriam and conflicted with electoral law and precedent. Delivering judgment, Justice A. B. Akuffo held the stringent Rule 54 review threshold was unmet, reaffirmed that Article 130(1) empowers constitutional enforcement without ultra vires challenges, emphasized the case’s public-interest character, and dismissed the review as entirely devoid of merit.
A. B. AKUFFO (MS) J.S.C
Brief Background
By a Writ of Summons issued in the High Court, Accra, on 9th February 2009, Mr Sumaila Bielbiel, the Respondent herein (who is hereinafter referred to as ‘the Respondent’) commenced an action against Mr. Adamu Dramani (who is hereinafter referred to as ‘the Applicant’) and the Attorney General, for (inter alia) the following reliefs:-
“1. A declaration that defendant is a holder of a British passport and therefore owes allegiance to a country other than Ghana and is therefore disqualified from holding the office of Member of Parliament of the Republic of Ghana.
2. An injunction against the Defendant restraining him from holding himself out as a Member of Parliament and compelling him to vacate his seat in Parliament.” ... etc
The Applicant entered conditional appearance and applied to the High Court for an order setting aside the writ on the ground that the said court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the matter, since the cause of action was in effect an election petition and, as such, was out of time and, in any event, ought to have been commenced by a Petition rather than a Writ of Summons. The Learned High Court Judge dismissed the application to set aside the Writ of Summons, and the Applicant herein, being dissatisfied with that decision, appealed to the Court of Appeal. The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal upheld the Applicant’s appeal on the main ground that, since the Respondent, by his writ, was seeking an order compelling Applicant to vacate his parliamentary seat, in the circumstances of the case, he was challenging the validity of the Applicant’s election to Parliament, and the matter was in effect an election petition. As such therefore, according to their Lordships, by virtue of Sections 16 and 18 of the Representation of the People Law, 1992 (PNDCL 284) (as well as the terms of Order 2(2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47)), not only was the action not commenced in proper form, but moreover, the same was also out of time. The Court of Appeal, therefore, set aside the Writ.
Thereafter, the Respondent, by a writ filed on March 30th 2010 against the Applicant herein and the Attorney General invoked the original jurisdiction of this Court, claiming:-
“1. A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of articles 97(1)(e) and 94(2)(a), Adamu Daramani, also known as: Adamu Daramani-Sakande; Adamou Daramani Sakande; Adamou Sakande, who holds a British Passpor