YAW BROGYA GYAMFI v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL
May 5, 2020
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- YEBOAH, CJ (PRESIDING)
- BAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC
- APPAU, JSC
- PWAMANG, JSC
- MARFUL-SAU, JSC
- AMEGATCHER, JSC
- KOTEY, JSC
May 5, 2020
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
MARFUL-SAU, JSC: -
This action was originally consolidated with two other suits namely Writ No. J1/14/2018 and JI/15/18, which were discontinued in the early stages of the proceedings. The Plaintiff in this action, Yaw Brogya Gyamfi was left alone to pursue the writ he issued on the 26th of March 2018. On the 5th of May 2020, this Court by a unanimous decision dismissed the Plaintiff claims against the Defendant and reserved its reasons which we hereby deliver.
On the 26th of March 2018 the Plaintiff in his capacity as a citizen of Ghana, by a writ invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court pursuant to Articles 2 and 130 of the 1992 Constitution, seeking against the Defendant the following reliefs:
“a. A declaration that the ratification by Parliament of the supposed Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana and the Republic of the United States of America on Defence Co-operation, the status of United States Forces and Access to and use of Agreed Facilities and Area in the Republic of Ghana on March 24, 2018 when the supposed agreement had not been executed by the President or a person authorized by the President as provided for by Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution is contrary to the said Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution and same is null and void.
b. A declaration that the Minister of Defence acted in contravention of Articles 58 (1), 75 and 93 (2) of the 1992 Constitution when he laid or caused to be laid before Parliament an unexecuted draft of the supposed Defence Co-operation Agreement for ratification under Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution.
c. A declaration that by the provision of Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution all bilateral and multilateral agreements entered into by the government of the Republic of Ghana must be executed by the President or a person authorized by the President before it is laid before Parliament for ratification.
d. A declaration that the Government and Parliament of Ghana acted in contravention of Articles 2, 58(1), 33, 93(2), 125, 130(1)(b), 135 and140 of the 1992 Constitution when they supposedly entered into and supposedly ratified a Treaty(Defence Co-operation Agreement) with the United States of America under Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution that provided in its terms and conditions that the interpretation, application or enforcement of the said agreement cannot be subject to the courts of Ghana (including this Honourable Supreme Court) or any other court in the world.
e. A
AI Generated Summary
Yaw Brogya Gyamfi sought declarations in the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction challenging Parliament’s ratification of a 2018 Defence Co-operation Agreement between Ghana and the United States. He argued the unsigned agreement laid before Parliament violated Article 75, improperly invited parliamentary prior approval, and was not in Ghana’s national interest because its dispute-settlement clause allegedly ousted Ghanaian courts’ jurisdiction and curtailed constitutional rights. The Government responded that submitting unsigned copies promoted parliamentary scrutiny and maintained the Agreement renewed prior security cooperation against terrorism. Applying a broad, purposive interpretive approach grounded in Tuffour and section 10(4) of the Interpretation Act, the Court held that Article 75 focuses on substance over form: an unsigned agreement that binds Ghana is still within the scope for parliamentary ratification. Relying also on Banful, the Court found the dispute clause to be a regular ADR provision, and concluded the Agreement furthered national security under Article 35(2). The Court unanimously dismissed the writ.