June 26, 2002
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This review arose from the Attorney-Generals challenge to a prior 5:4 Supreme Court decision that had declared Ghanas Fast Track High Court unconstitutional and enjoined Tsatsu Tsikatas prosecution there. Applying Article 133(1) and Rule 54 of CI 16, a six-judge majority identified exceptional circumstances and a fundamental error in the original rulings requirement that High Court divisions be created by Parliament or by constitutional/statutory instruments. The majority held that Articles 126(1) and 139(3) vest authority in the Chief Justice to create divisions of the High Court administratively, and that Guidelines did not create the court but were operational tools to facilitate automation and docket management. The Court further determined that the criminal summonss issuance in the Presidents name was a curable defect per the Delta Food precedent. Several justices emphasized the Fast Track Divisions validity and competence, including reliance on the Selormey case, and rejected re-argument as grounds for review. Five justices dissented, finding no exceptional circumstances and maintaining the Fast Track Division had not been lawfully established.
EDWARD WIREDU, C.J.:
My opinion in this review application is expressed in the ruling to be read by my brother Acquah, J.S.C. on our joint behalf.
ACQUAH, J.S.C.:
On 28th February 2002, this Court by a 5:4 decision entered judgment for the plaintiff for
1. A declaration that there is no Fast Track Court with jurisdiction to try Criminal cases established under the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, and there is therefore no constitutional foundation for the plaintiff to be prosecuted before such Court.
2. A declaration that the oral demand by agents of the Defendant to plaintiff to appear before a Fast Track Court, when no such Court for trial is provided for in the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, is an infringement on Article 125 and 126 of the Constitution establishing the Judiciary.
3. An injunction against the Defendant and their agents restraining them from seeking to proceed with a trial of the Plaintiff before the purported Fast Track Court.
4. A declaration that the summons signed by a Justice of Appeal served on the Plaintiff commanding him “in the President’s name to appear in person before this Court" is in contravention of Articles 1(i) and 125 (i) of the Constitution.
5. A declaration that there is no Fast Track High Court established under the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana and therefore a summons to appear before such a Court is null and void.
The reasons for the decision were reserved for the 20th March 2002.
However, before the delivery of the reasons, the Attorney General on 1st March 2002 filed an application for a review of the majority decision. In an accompanying statement of case, he contented that:
“In view of the exceptional circumstances which have resulted in miscarriage of justice by the ruling, this matter must be looked at again by review”.
He proceeded to expound the particulars of the exceptional circumstances in the following words:
“1. It is the case of the applicant that the decision of the Court is a retrograde step that strikes at the heart of the Administration of Justice in this country and considering the far reaching effect this will have on the Administration of Justice in the Land, having regard to numerous cases that have been disposed of at the Fast Track High Court, and since there is only a very narrow majority decision, there is absolute need to have a second hard look at this matter again.
2. It is the case of the applicant that since the Supreme Court itself in the