April 24, 2013
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice J. V. M. Dotse, writing for a seven-judge panel of the Supreme Court of Ghana presided over by W. A. Atuguba JSC, addressed a self-represented litigant’s request for formal recognition and guidance for non-lawyers appearing in court. The plaintiff invoked Article 2(1) and framed a series of questions about a purported constitutional “window of opportunity” permitting self-representation, arguing that courts expect undue professionalism from lay persons. The Attorney-General, represented by Principal State Attorney Sylvester Williams, argued the case did not raise genuine constitutional enforcement or interpretation issues and urged dismissal. The Court confirmed that neither the 1992 Constitution nor the Supreme Court Rules (C.I. 16) prohibit self-representation, but emphasized that all litigants must comply with procedural rules and timelines and that the Court’s special original jurisdiction cannot be used to pursue generalized grievances. Finding no identified constitutional provision or enactment alleged to be inconsistent, the Court declined jurisdiction and dismissed the action. The Court also urged review of Act 542 and suggested a mandatory pro bono scheme through the Ghana Bar Association.
DOTSE JSC:
I wish to preface this judgment by making two statements about the role of the Supreme Court when it’s original jurisdiction is invoked in contemporary Ghana. Michael G. Trachtman, in the introduction remarks in his invaluable book on the U. S. Supreme Court entitled “The Supremes Greatest Hits”, stated the following as the methods by which the Supreme Court keeps the Constitution alive. These are:
1. “First in the same way it interpretes statutes, it interprets the constitution.
2. The second is the power of the Supreme Court to decide that any act of a government official, and any law passed by a government, violates the Constitution and is therefore invalid and of no effect. This power, termed the power of “judicial review” is virtually limitless, possibly limited by the constitution itself.”
From the above two methods by which the U.S. Supreme Court has been identified to keep that country’s constitution alive, the same can be said of our Supreme Court under the Constitution 1992. Indeed the Ghana Supreme Court also has this interpretive and enforcement jurisdiction as well as its judicial review aspect when it exercises it’s original jurisdiction.
The Ghana Supreme Court, has since the promulgation of the Constitution 1992 been called upon to interpret the Constitution in several cases. See cases like:
1. J. H. Mensah v A.G. [1996-97] SCGLR 320, holding 7, where the Supreme court held thus:
“The Supreme Court had the power to determine political questions because the cumulative effect of articles 2 (1) and (3) – (5) and 130 (1) of the Constitution was to invest in the Supreme Court an original jurisdiction to entertain all cases relating to the enforcement and interpretation of any provision of the constitution and all questions relating to the constitutionality of any enactment or any act or omission by any person.”
2. New Patriotic Party v A.G. (CIBA) case [1996-97] SCGLR 729 holding 1, where the court by a majority of 4 -1 held thus:
“all classes of persons including natural persons and corporate bodies like the plaintiff) had the capacity to bring an action in the Supreme Court under article 2 (1) for the enforcement of the 1992 Constitution.”
3. Agyei Twum v A. G. & Anr. [2005-2006] SCGLR 732, holding 5, per Date-Bah and Ocran JJSC
4. Asare-Baah III v A. G. & Anr. [2010] SCGLR 463 holding 3 per Wood C.J
5. Federation of Youth Association of Ghana (FEDYAG) v Public Universities of Ghana & Others [2010] SCGLR