TSATSU TSIKATA v. THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
2002
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
- AMPIAH, J.S.C. (PRESIDING)
- ACQUAH, J.S.C.
- ATUGUBA, J.S.C.
- AKUFFO (MS)
- LAMPTEY
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Administrative Law
2002
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Ampiah J.S.C., dismissed a constitutional writ brought by Tsatsu Tsikata against Chief Justice E.K. Wiredu and the Attorney-General, challenging a 10 January 2001 practice direction and seeking declarations about the composition of Supreme Court panels and the limits of the Chief Justice’s discretion. Tsikata also lodged preliminary objections: that the Attorney-General could not represent the Chief Justice and that the Chief Justice, being a party, could not empanel the bench to hear the case. The Court, relying on Articles 2(1), 130(1), 125(4), 133(2), 296 and precedent (Kuenyehia v. Archer; Akufo-Addo v. Quashie-Idun), held the Chief Justice has administrative prerogative to empanel benches, the practice direction was a non-binding expression of intent, and there is no constitutional requirement for an eleven-judge review panel. The Court refused injunctions or directions limiting the exercise of the Chief Justice’s discretion and overruled both preliminary objections.
AMPIAH, J.S.C.:
On 11th February, 2002, this Court by a majority of 5 to 4 gave judgment for the plaintiff herein in a suit entitled, "Tsatsu Tsikata vrs. Attorney-General"—Writ No. 2/2002. Whereupon the Attorney-General, the defendant in that suit filed a Motion for Review of the decision of the Court. The Motion for Review is yet to be heard but the plaintiff herein in the interim has filed this instant writ invoking the Court's original jurisdiction under Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the Constitution.
In this Writ the plaintiff seeks interpretation and Enforcement of the Constitution by—
"1. A Declaration that on a true and correct interpretation of Articles 125(4), 128(1) and 128(2) of the Constitution all available Justices of the Supreme Court do not have 'a constitutional right to sit' 'where practicable and especially in constitutional matters', nor do 'at least seven (7) Justices of the Supreme Court' have such a right as purportedly conferred on them by a Practice Direction of His Lordship the Acting Chief Justice (as he then was) Mr. Justice Wiredu dated 10th January, 2001.
2. A Declaration that the 10th January, 2001 Practice Direction of His Lordship the Acting Chief Justice (as he then was) Justice Wiredu is null and void being contrary to Articles 128(2) and 125(4) of the 1992 Constitution.
3. A Declaration that on a true and correct interpretation of Article 133(2) of the 1992 Constitution there is no constitutional requirement for there to be a panel of eleven justices of the Supreme Court to hear a review of a decision by a panel of nine justices of the Supreme Court.
4. A declaration that, on a true and correct interpretation of Article 133(2) of the 1992 Constitution, except in the case by a panel of five justices of the Supreme Court, there is no requirement for His Lordship, the Chief Justice to add two additional Justices of the Supreme Court to hear an application for review of a Supreme Court decision.
5. A declaration that the power of the Chief Justice under Article 125(4) of the 1992 Constitution to empanel the Supreme Court to hear cases is a discretionary power to be exercised in accordance with Article 296(a) and (b).
6. An Order of injunction directed to His Lordship the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Wiredu restraining him from acting on the basis of the said Practice Direction of 10th January, 2001 in empanelling Justices of the Supreme Court for the hearing of cases.
7. A direction to His Lordship, the Chief Jus