T. T. NARTEY v. GODWIN GATI

DR. DATE-BAH, JSC:-

This is the unanimous ruling of the Court on this reference.

Introduction

His Worship Ali Baba Abature, the Magistrate who has in this case made a reference to this Court, has exhibited commendable legal awareness. This is the first reference that we are aware of that has come from a Magistrate’s Court. He is, of course, well within his rights, under article 130(2) of the 1992 Constitution, to refer to this court:

“(a) all matters relating to the enforcement or interpretation of this Constitution; and

(b) all matters arising as to whether an enactment was made in excess of the powers conferred on Parliament or any authority or person by law or under this Constitution.”

The context within which this Court will exercise its original jurisdiction, whether by way of a reference or otherwise, was set out lucidly by Anin JA in the locus classicus in Republic v Special Tribunal; Ex parte Akosah [1980] GLR 592 at p. 604 as follows (in relation to the 1979 Constitution):

“From the foregoing dicta, we would conclude that an issue of enforcement or interpretation of a provision of the Constitution under article 118(1)(a) arises in any of the following eventualities:

(a) where the words of the provision are imprecise or unclear or ambiguous. Put in another way, it arises if one party invites the court to declare that the words of the article have a double-meaning or are obscure or else mean something different from or more than what they say;

(b) where the rival meanings have been placed by the litigants on the words of any provision of the Constitution;

(c) where there is a conflict in the meaning and effect of two or more articles of the Constitution, and the question is raised as to which provision should prevail;

(d) where on the face of the provisions, there is a conflict between the operation of particular institutions set up under the Constitution, and thereby raising problems of enforcement and of interpretation.

On the other hand, there is no case of “enforcement or interpretation” where the language of the article of the Constitution is clear, precise and unambiguous. In such an eventuality, the aggrieved party may appeal in the usual way to a higher court against what he may consider to be an erroneous construction of those words; and he should certainly not invoke the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under article 118. Again, where the submission made relates to no more that a proper application of the provisions of t