February 3, 2010
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
William Brown, a retired Deputy Auditor-General and President of the Audit Service Pensioners Association, brought an original constitutional action in the Supreme Court against the Attorney-General, the Ministry of Finance, and the Controller and Accountant-General. Brown challenged executive practices that he alleged violated the 1992 Constitution’s financial architecture for the Audit Service: ministerial downward revisions of administrative expense estimates, subjection to executive budget directives and ceilings, submissions of estimates to Parliament for approval, insistence on financial clearance for recruitment and payroll, and payment of pensions and gratuities under the Social Security Fund rather than the Consolidated Fund. Applying a purposive interpretation, the Court held that the Audit Service’s administrative expenses are directly charged to the Consolidated Fund, insulating them from ministerial approval and budgetary ceilings. The Court recognised Parliament’s limited implied oversight to restrain fundamentally unreasonable estimates, declined to forbid Parliamentary committee interactions, and affirmed that pensions and gratuities must be paid from the Consolidated Fund and that recruitment decisions are within the Audit Service Board’s remit without ministerial financial clearance.
WOOD (MRS), CJ:-
On the 7th August 2009 the plaintiff, William Brown, instituted these proceedings invoking the original jurisdiction of this court, in his dual capacity. First, as a concerned citizen of Ghana, pursuant to article 2(1) (b) of the 1992 constitution, but second, and even more important, as the facts demonstrate, in his capacity as a retired Deputy Auditor –General and President of the Audit Service Pensioners Association. Contending that he stands adversely affected by certain actions of the Minister of Finance and the Controller and Accountant –General, he as a direct beneficiary of this action, caused this writ to be issued against the Attorney-General, the Ministry of Finance and the Controller and Accountant-General for the following reliefs:
1. “That on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 178(1) (a); 179(2) (b); 187(14); 189(2); 189(3) of the 1992 Constitution administrative expenses including salaries, allowances, pensions and gratuities of the Ghana Audit Service determined by the Audit Service Board in consultation with the Public Services Commission are not subject to the approval of Parliament or the Minister of Finance.
2. That the practice of the Minister of Finance in reviewing downwards AND OR submitting estimates determined by the Audit Service Board under Article 189(3)(a) of the Constitution for Parliamentary approval is unconstitutional.
3. That the reduction by the Ministry of Finance, of the annual estimates of the administrative expenses of the Office of the Auditor-General including all salaries, allowances, gratuities and pensions payable to persons serving in the Audit Service before submission to Parliament, and the presentation of such estimates by the Minister to Parliament for approval are unconstitutional.
4. That the subjection of the annual estimates of administrative expenses of the Audit Service to budget policy directives of the Executive branch of Government including budget ceilings and hearings at the Ministry of Finance is unconstitutional as the Ministry is empowered to hear and provide ceilings on only expenses subject to annual appropriation.
5. That the invitation of the Audit Service by any Parliamentary Committee for discussions, hearings, justifications or defence of the estimates determined by the Audit Service Board under the Constitution is unconstitutional.
6. That the payment of pensions and gratuities of retired officers and employees of the Audit Service under the Soci