Constitutional Law Briefs

Tuffour v Attorney-General

Court: Court of Appeal, Sitting as Supreme Court

Year: 1980

Principle(s): An act which contravenes the constitution is void. Vetting and rejection of Apaloo found contrary to article 127(8), therefore void; Parliamentary proceedings cannot be questioned by the court pursuant to article 96; Every Ghanaian has the right to prevent the abolishing of the constitutional order and can bring an action in the Supreme Court for such purposes.

J.H Mensah v Attorney General

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 1997-98

Principle(s): Retained ministers need prior parliamentary approval before they can assume office; inapplicability of political question doctrine; supremacy of the constitution

Sallah v. Attorney General

Court: Court

Year: 1970

Principle(s): Discussion of the legal effects of a coup d'état, grundnorm

Raphael Cubagee v. Asare and Others

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2018

Principle(s): 1. The right to privacy is “an individual's right to be left alone to live his life free from unwanted intrusion, scrutiny and publicity. It is the right of a person to be secluded, secretive and anonymous in society and to have control of intrusions into the sphere of his private life.” 2. Secretly recording a person is in contravention of his right to privacy under Article 18(2) of the 1992 Constitution. 3. However, rights are not absolute. A secret recording in contravention of a person’s rights may be admitted if doing so would be in the public interests. 4. Where a question of constitutional interpretation arises in any court other than the Supreme Court, that court shall stay proceedings and refer the matter to the Supreme Court.

Attorney General v Sallah

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 1970

Principle(s): 1. It is not enough for a party to allege that a judge may be biased. There must be adequate proof; 2. The proof is the preponderance of evidence, same as in civil cases; 3. Merely knowing a judge is not proof that the judge will be biased; 4. There must be evidence to show a real likelihood of bias.

Banful and Another Vrs Attorney General and Another

Court: Supreme Court of Ghana

Year: 2017

Principle(s): Procedural limitation: President ought to obtain parliamentary ratification before entering into an agreement with the government of the United States for the transfer of two suspected terrorists into Ghana.

Asare v. General Legal Council (Examination and Interview Case)

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2017

Principle(s): When acts of administrative bodies contravene the Constitution, those acts shall be declared void. If an administrative body wants to make changes to a Legislative Instrument, it must do so in accordance with the procedure in article 11(7).

New Patriotic Party (NPP) v Attorney General (The 31st December Case)

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 1994

Principle(s): Any act which contravenes the constitution shall be void to the extent of the inconsistency. The constitution as a whole is a justiciable document, and this includes the directive principles of state policy.

Republic v. State Fishing Corporation Commission Of Enquiry; Ex Parte Bannerman

Court: Court

Year: 1967

Principle(s): 1. Acting in excess of the powers conferred is ultra vires the instrument conferring the powers. 2. A certiorari will lie to quash acts done in excess of the powers conferred. 3. There is a natural justice rule that an accused should be given a hearing.

Ezuame Mannan v. The Attorney-General and Speaker of Parliament

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2017

Principle(s): 1. The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, and the independence of Parliament does not affect that power; 2. Ghana operates a constitutional supremacy, not a parliamentary supremacy; 3. The Directive Principles of State Policy are prima facie justiciable; 4. Even if Ghana were to breach an international treaty obligation, such a breach “cannot be said to be the basis for an action against the state for failing in general to promote respect for international law”, as required by Article 40; 5. Failure to follow the procedure for the exercise of legislative authority will lead to a law being null and void. (procedural limitation); 6. When an enactment violates the letter and spirit of the Constitution, it shall be struck down as unconstitutional.

Republic v. Director of Prisons. Ex Parte Salifa

Court: High Court

Year: 1968

Principle(s): Substantive limitation, procedural limitation

Republic v. Director of Special Branch; Ex Parte Salifa (2)

Court: High Court

Year: 1968

Principle(s): A person can be arrested without warrant if national security is at stake; the NLC had unlimited powers (absence of substantive limitation); A person can be re-arrested after being release on habeas corpus

Lardan v Attorney General (1st Case)

Court: High Court

Year:

Principle(s): Civil procedure seeking injunction against a deportation order will hamper the purpose of the Deportation Act, 1957

Lardan v Attorney General (2nd Case)

Court: High Court

Year: 1957

Principle(s): Absence of substantive limitation on the powers of parliament

Amidu v Kuffour & Others

Court: Supreme Court of Ghana

Year: 2001-2002

Principle(s): Rule of law: an action can be brought against the president under article 2, but through the Attorney General.

Dominic Ayine v Attorney General

Court: Supreme Court of Ghana

Year: 2020

Principle(s): When a person alleges that an action contravenes the constitution, he can bring an action at the Supreme Court under article 2(1) and 130(1) for a determination

Brogya Gyamfi v. Attorney General

Court: Supreme Court of Ghana

Year: 2020

Principle(s): A person who believes an act of government is contrary to some provisions of the constitution, may bring an action in Supreme Court for a declaration to that effect. Procedural Limitation (absence in this case)

State v. General Officer Commanding the Ghana Army; Ex Parte Braimah

Court: Court

Year: 1967

Principle(s): Absence of substantive limitation.

Miller v Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland

Court: The Supreme Court

Year: 2019

Principle(s): Rule of law: the court declared the prime minister's advice to the crown to prorogue parliament unlawful; Judicial Review: the court's adjudication of executive acts deemed to subvert parliamentary sovereignty.

Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer (Steel Seizure Case)

Court: Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Year: 1952

Principle(s): The President has no power to issue an order for the seizure of property, but congress has the power; separation of powers

Regina (on the application of Miller and another) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

Court: UK Supreme Court

Year: 2017

Principle(s): Rule of Law: Ministers are only allowed to give notice of withdrawal to the EU upon statutory authorization; Separation of powers: Legislative authorization is needed prior to ministers giving a formal notice of withdrawal from EU to the Council of the European Union

United States v Nixon, 418 US 683

Court: United States Court of Appeal

Year: 1974

Principle(s): 1. Rule of law: The president does not have absolute immunity. 2. Checks and balances: intra-branch disputes are justiciable

Sam (No. 2) v Attorney-General

Court: Supreme Court of Ghana

Year: 2000

Principle(s): Supremacy of the Constitution; Judicial Review; Locus Standi

Ghana Lotto Operators v National Lottery Authority

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2007-2008

Principle(s): The Directive Principles of State Policy are presumptively justiciable.

Asare v. Attorney General (Constitutional Review Commission Case)

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2015

Principle(s): The president can propos bills for the amendment of the constitution and engage in activities preparatory to the actual amendment process.

Asare v. Attorney General (Swearing-in case)

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2004

Principle(s): Swearing in of the speaker as president does not violate separation of powers, as the organs still remain distinct and separate.

Abu Ramadan & Evans Nimako v. The Electoral Commission & The Attorney General

Court: Supreme Court of Ghana

Year: 5th May, 2016

Principle(s): Judicial Review

Federation of Youth Association of Ghana (FEDYAG) v. Public Universities of Ghana and Other

Court: Supreme Court of Ghana

Year: 2010

Principle(s): Exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court to enforce constitutional provisions of a personal nature. However, a person without a personal interest may institute an action for the enforcement of all constitutional provisions, even if it is on human rights. Also, if an action is for a declaration that an act is inconsistent with the Constitution, even if human rights provisions are involved, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction.

The Republic v. Maikankan & Others

Court: Supreme Court, Ghana

Year: 1971

Principle(s): If a lower court thinks that a provision is clear and unambiguous, no reference needs to be made to the supreme court for interpretation of said provision; A jury is not necessary for trial of offences not punishable by death or life imprisonment.

Re Akotto and 7 Others

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 1961

Principle(s): Rule of law, separation of powers; judicial review

Republic v. The High Court (Ex Parte Zanetor)

Court: Supreme Court of Ghana

Year: 2016

Principle(s): When an issue of interpretation arises in Courts lower than the Supreme Court, the Court ought to stay proceedings and refer the issue to the Supreme Court; The eligibility criteria become alive at the time of filing ones nomination with the Electoral Commission.

Gbedemah v. Awoonor-Williams

Court: Supreme Court of Ghana

Year: 1969

Principle(s): Judicial Review; No need to interpret when the words are clear and unambiguous

Marbury v Madison

Court: U.S Supreme Court

Year: 1803

Principle(s): Judicial Review: An act of congress which violates the constitution, is void.

Angu v Attah

Court: The Supreme Court of the Gold Coast Colony

Year: 1916

Principle(s): Customary law has to be proved in the courts till such a time that the courts take judicial notice of them

Tamaklo v Mitchell

Court: Divisional Court East Province, Accra

Year: 1892

Principle(s): An executive (commissioner) is only protected from court action by section 50 of the Supreme Court Ordinance if they act in their official capacity or truly believed they acted in an official capacity

Asare v Attorney General (Dual Citizenship Case)

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2012

Principle(s): Discrimination against dual citizens by preventing them from holding certain sensitive offices is justifiable and not contrary to Article 17; Inapplicability of basic structure doctrine in Ghana and the power of parliament to amend even fundamental principles by following the right procedure

Captan v Minister of Interior

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 1970

Principle(s): An alien does not have the same rights as a citizen in terms of freedom of movement, entry into and residence in Ghana, and immunity from expulsion from Ghana.

Bilson v. Rawlings and Another

Court: High Court

Year: 1993-1994

Principle(s): Acquisition of citizenship; allegiance; citizenship as a way of disqualifying a candidate; rules governing granting of an injunction

Re Michael Ankomah-Nimfa

Court: High Court

Year: 2020

Principle(s):

Michael Ankomah Nimfah v. James Gyakye Quayson, The Electoral Commission, Attorney General

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2023

Principle(s): Citizenship is bound up with loyalty to the State and allegiance to it; Eligibility criteria for becoming a member of parliament become operative at the time the Electoral Commission opens nominations.

New Patriotic Party (NPP) v. Inspector-General of Police and Others

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 1992-93

Principle(s): Any provision of an enactment which contravenes the constitution is null and void

Shalabi and Another v. The Attorney-General

Court: High Court

Year: 1972

Principle(s): Parliament does not have unlimited powers, and its acts can be challenged in court.

Bimpong-Buta v. General Legal Council and Others

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2003-2005

Principle(s): The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit if: the suit involves genuine issues of interpretation and the provisions needing interpretation have not been previously interpreted; it involves the enforcement of a non-human rights provision of the constitution (jurisdiction lies with the High Court in human rights cases); it questions the legality of an enactment by Parliament or any other authority; and it cannot be resolved by other competent courts without infringing upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

British Airways & Another v. Attorney-General

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 1997-98

Principle(s): In the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, the Supreme Court can order lower courts to discontinue a trial; The court will not declare non-existent laws null and void.

Ware v. Ofori-Atta & Others

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1959

Principle(s): Procedural limitations. A bill affecting the traditional functions or privileges of chiefs must be referred to the House of Chief in the area of affected chiefs before its second reading in parliament.

State v. Dosso and Another (The Dosso Case)

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan

Year: 1958

Principle(s): A revolution abolishes the old legal order and creates a new Grundnorm, the source of validity for all laws in a legal system.

Uganda v. Commissioner of Prisons, Ex Parte Michael Matovu

Court: High Court of Uganda

Year: 1966

Principle(s): After a successful revolution, the old order ceases to exists and a new one is created.

Lakanmi v. Attorney General for Western Nigeria

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 1970

Principle(s): There was no revolution when a council of ministers handed over power to a military government.

Asare v. Attorney General and Another (Professional Law Course v Academic Law Course)

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2020

Principle(s): An action will be dismissed if it does not properly invoke the enforcement or interpretative jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Marian Awuni v. West African Examination Council in The Matter of an Application by Daniel Awuni Per His Next Friend

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2004

Principle(s): Meaning of administrative bodies; meaning of the duty to act fairly and reasonably; audi alterem partem (natural justice)

Mensima and Others v. Attorney-General and Others

Court: Supreme Court of Ghana

Year: 1998

Principle(s): 1. Any provision which contravenes the constitution is void. Regulation 3(1) of LI 239 contravened article 21(1)(e) of the 1992 Constitution, and is therefore void; 2. Rights are not absolute; 3. Guide to Interpretation; Freedom of association must be to promote legitimate interests; Constitutionalism

Republic v Yebbi and Avalifo

Court: Supreme Court of Ghana

Year: 1999-2000

Principle(s): 1. Any provision which contravenes the constitution is void; 2. Meaning of the words 'mean' and 'includes'.; 3. Lower courts bound to follow the decisions of higher courts

Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal Proprietors

Court: House of Lords

Year: 1852

Principle(s): The decision of a judge with a pecuniary interest in the case is invalid.

Republic v. High Court, Denu; Ex Parte Agbesi Awusu II (No. 1)

Court: Court

Year: 2003-2004

Principle(s): When there is the real likelihood a judge will be biased in favor of a party, he will be disqualified from judging the case.

Essilfie And Another v. Tetteh and Others

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1995-1996

Principle(s): No one can be a judge in his own cause. Exclusion clause must be in accordance with the principles of natural justice to be valid.

Tetteh And Others v. Essilfie and Another

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2001-2002

Principle(s): The courts will generally enforce a provision in the Constitution of an Association which requires members to exhaust internal procedures for resolving issues before resorting to the Courts. However, the courts will not enforce such a provision if doing so is against the rule that a man should not be a judge in his own cause. Nemo judex in causa sua.

Tsikata v. Chief Justice and Attorney-General

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2001-2002

Principle(s): When an individual is entrusted with a constitutional or statutory obligation, an allegation of bias will not obstruct the fulfillment of that duty.

Bilson v. Apaloo

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 1980

Principle(s): Meaning of nemo judex in causa sua; The doctrine of necessity as an exception to the nemo judex rule.

Nduom and Others v. Bank of Ghana and Others

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2023

Principle(s): An enactment cannot oust the jurisdiction of the Courts, as same is conferred by the Constitution.

Akufo-Addo and Others v. Quarshie Idun and Others

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1968

Principle(s): Where a statute clearly enjoins a person to perform an act, he has to do it even if its performance is incompatible with the strict rules of natural justice… We are of the opinion that where the clear terms of a statute conflict with natural justice it is the latter which has to yield.

Agyei Twum v. Attorney-General and Akwetey

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2005-2006

Principle(s): 1. The performance of a statutory or constitutional duty cannot be prevented by the operation of the principles of natural justice. 2. When the Chief Justice empanels a bench, he acts as an administrator and not as a judge. Accordingly, a principle of natural justice tailored to the requirements of proceedings cannot be relevant to that exercise

Adjei-Ampofo (No. 1) v. Accra Metropolitan Assembly & Attorney-General

Court: Court

Year: 2007-2008

Principle(s): Only citizens of Ghana can bring an action under Article 2(1) for the enforcement and interpretation of the 1992 Constitution; Citizens and non-citizens can bring an action in the High Court for the enforcement of their personal human rights under Article 33(1); The essence of Article 2(1) is to foster the enforcement of all provisions of the 1992 Constitution; Citizens of Ghana have the locus to seek enforcement of any provision of the 1992 Constitution.

Ekwam v. Pianim (No. 2)

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 1996–97

Principle(s): Legal effects of a revolution. Suspension of the 1979 Constitution. History of Ghana and the PNDC’s Rule

Tyron Iras Marhguy v. Board Of Governors Achimota Senior High School & The Attorney-General

Court: High Court

Year: 2021

Principle(s): Relationship between capacity (locus standi) and jurisdiction; Rights are not absolute; Must be exercised in accordance with the limits in the Constitution and the public interest. Rules of a school which limits the enjoyment of a right when the constitution does not recognize such limits, are of no effect.

Justice Abdulai v. The Attorney-General

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2022

Principle(s): Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interpret provisions of the 1992 Constitution; Meaning of Articles 102 and 104(1); Meaning of political question doctrine and its non-applicability in Ghana; Constitutional supremacy versus parliamentary supremacy, the prevalence of the former in Ghana; Rule of law and the limits on parliament in Ghana; The 1992 Constitution as the grundnorm.

Adjei Ampofo v. Attorney-General & the President of the National House of Chiefs

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2011

Principle(s): Constitutional and statutory limits on the institution of chieftaincy; Section 63(d) of the Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759), which gives power to the chief to call a person to attend to an issue, void for being contrary to Article 21(1)(g) (freedom of movement). Rule of law: the chieftaincy institution is not above the laws of Ghana; Chiefs do not have an adjudicating function, only the function of customary arbitrator

Republic v. National House of Chiefs, Kumasi and Another; Ex Parte Kusi-Apea (Constitutionalism Brief)

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1984-86

Principle(s): Constitutionalism under military regime, limited to the extent allowed by the military regime itself. Power of courts under a military regime: "The only power which the courts have ever had and still have to declare the laws of a military regime invalid or null and void is in cases where the law itself does not conform to the criteria for validity mandatorily provided for by the military regime itself."

Republic v. National House of Chiefs, Kumasi and Another; Ex Parte Kusi-Apea (Chieftaincy Brief)

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1984-86

Principle(s): Meaning of a chief. Entry of name in national register of chiefs no longer a condition precedent for one to be a chief

Republic v. Akim Abuakwa Traditional Council; Ex Parte Sakyiraa II

Court: High Court

Year: 1977

Principle(s): A queenmother can be (or is) a chief; Judicial functions of a Traditional Council are exercised by its judicial committee.

Republic v. Akim Abuakwa Traditional Council; Ex Parte Sakyiraa II (Briefed for Natural Justice)

Court: Court

Year: 1977

Principle(s): 1. Natural justice rules: right to be notified and heard before a matter in dispute is decided (Audi alteram partem). Nobody can be a judge in his own cause (Nemo judex in causa sua). 2. Certiorari will lie to quash a decision made contrary to natural justice rules.

Republic v. High Court, Kumasi; Ex Parte Abubakari

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 1997-1998

Principle(s): 1. The head of a market association and other such groupings, despite being called chief, is not a chief within the constitutional and statutory definition of a chief. 2. A cause or matter affecting chieftaincy is not limited to only issues on the nomination, installation, enskinment, or enstoolment of a chief but extends to the constitutional relations under customary law between chiefs. 3. When there is a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy in an action, the High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain such an action.

In Re Moshiehene of Kumasi; Abdul Rahman v. Abubakari

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2017

Principle(s): The head of a migrant community is not a chief within the meaning of Article 277.

In Re Adonten Divisional Stool of Twifo Heman Traditional Area; Republic v. Central Regional House of Chiefs; Ex Parte Amoa Sasraku II & Others (Nkrumah & Others Interested Parties)

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2009

Principle(s): 1. The Regional House of Chiefs has no original jurisdiction to hear petitions involving divisional stools or stools below a paramount stool. 2. Merely naming a paramount chief in a petition does not make the petition a dispute involving a paramount stool. 3. Only the kingmakers can destool a chief, not the paramount chief.

Aduamoa II v. Twum II

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2000

Principle(s): The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy on first instance. It, however, has an appellate jurisdiction to entertain a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy from the decision of the National House of Chiefs

Republic v. Circuit Court Judge, Hohoe; Ex Parte Susu Alias Awusi

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1992

Principle(s): Where an act gives rise to either a civil or criminal action, then it is for the complainant to decide whether to institute his action in a civil court or proceed against him in a criminal court. If he decides to institute a civil action then in a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy only the chieftaincy tribunal can entertain it. So the High Court and Circuit Courts will not have jurisdiction if the complainant decides to institute civil proceedings.

Agbevor v. Attorney-General

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2000

Principle(s): Substantive limitation on the power of the president to remove a judicial officer

Tobah and Another v. Kwekumah and Others

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1980

Principle(s): The High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. The High Court still has supervisory jurisdiction and can issue prerogative writs aimed at correcting some mischief in an inferior court or tribunal (say, if a lower court wrongly assumes jurisdiction to decide a chieftaincy matter, the High Court can quash that decision) in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction.

Boampong v. Aboagye

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 1981

Principle(s): 1. For a valid abdication, four conditions must be met (renunciation, acceptance by kingmakers, performance of requisite rites and formalities, publicity). 2. Only those who elect a chief can destool a chief.

Frimpong v. Vetting Committee and Electoral Commission

Court: Gimpa SRC Judicial Council

Year: 2024

Principle(s): Persons in executive positions, per the SRC Constitution, are required to resign 21 days prior to filling their nominations; A member of a committee is a person in an executive position; The acts of a committee that are within its powers will not be quashed by certiorari.

Ghana Bar Association v. Attorney-General and Another (Abban Case)

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 1995-1996

Principle(s): 1. When the constitution provides a special forum for undertaking an action, that forum must be used, and the court will decline jurisdiction if a person seeks to use the court. 2. The court does not have the power to remove a justice of the Supreme Court. 3. Applicability of political question doctrine in Ghana.