Appeals Court, Judge Henry Anthony Kwofie has assured the judiciary’s readiness to confront challenges associated with Artificial Intelligence (AI).
This affirmation came during his vetting by Parliament’s Appointment Committee, where concerns were raised about the 2023 WASSCE results being withheld due to AI-generated answers and allegations of legal professionals using AI in ways detrimental to cases.
Justice Kwofie, speaking confidently on December 20, emphasized the judiciary’s capability to handle such issues. He pointed to the E-Justice program as one of the tools in place to address concerns related to emerging technologies.
He stated, “What we are doing to try to catch up is to deal with the issue via the issue of E-Justice, computerisation. Those are the areas. But with respect to other areas, as and when the law changes the judiciary will move in tandem with the movement of the law.”
“We will not be at a standstill because we ourselves are also part of society,” he added.
He reassured that the judiciary would not remain stagnant and would adapt to societal changes, emphasizing their active role within society.
Justice Kwofie is among the three new judges nominated by President Akufo-Addo for the Supreme Court. Following his vetting, the committee will engage with the other two nominees, Yaw Darko Asare and Richard Adjei-Frimpong, both serving on the Court of Appeal.
The Appointments Committee, chaired by First Deputy Speaker Joseph Osei Owusu, will oversee the process and submit a report to the plenary for consideration.
Three judges nominated by President Akufo-Addo for the Supreme Court are currently appearing before the Appointments Committee of Parliament. These nominees have been put forward to fill vacant positions on the Supreme Court bench.
The first nominee to face the committee is Justice Henry Anthony Kwofie, followed by the other two nominees, Yaw Darko Asare and Richard Adjei-Frimpong. Both Yaw Darko Asare and Richard Adjei-Frimpong currently serve on the Court of Appeal.
Parliament is preparing to conduct a public hearing vetting for nominees selected by the President to fill vacant positions on the Supreme Court bench.
The President nominated three justices currently serving on the Court of Appeal for elevation to the Supreme Court. The nominees are Henry Anthony Kwofie, Yaw Darko Asare, and Richard Adjei-Frimpong.
The Appointments Committee, chaired by the First Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Joseph Osei Owusu, will oversee the vetting process and present a report to the plenary for consideration.
The President stressed the importance of promptly filling the vacancies caused by the retirement of some members on the bench in a letter dated October 11, 2023.
Parliament is gearing up for a public hearing vetting to consider nominees appointed by the President to fill vacant positions on the Supreme Court bench.
In a communication addressed to the House, the President put forward three justices currently serving on the Court of Appeal for elevation to the Supreme Court. The nominated justices are Henry Anthony Kwofie, Yaw Darko Asare, and Richard Adjei-Frimpong.
The Appointments Committee, led by the First Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Joseph Osei Owusu, will oversee the vetting process and present a report to the plenary for further consideration.
President Akufo-Addo, in a letter to Parliament dated October 11, 2023, underscored the urgency of filling the vacancies resulting from the retirement of some members on the bench.
Esinam Kporku, Esq, who gained media attention on December 13, 2023, following a report highlighting her impressive performance in a high-profile case at the Supreme Court has revealed how she felt while in court.
The attorney at Ecam Law Consult, played the role of lead counsel for the New Patriotic Party Bono Regional Chairman, Kwame Baffoe (Abronye DC), during a hearing at the Supreme Court.
The case involved a lawsuit against the Attorney General, urging the government to reverse the proposed emoluments for the First and Second Ladies as recommended by the Prof Yaa Ntiamoah-Baidu-led Committee.
The 7-member panel overseeing the case, led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, also included Justice Gabriel Pwamang, Justice Lovelace Johnson, Justice Prof. Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Justice Barbara AckahYensu, Justice Ernest Gawu, and Justice Samuel Asiedu.
Shortly after the report, Esinam received commendation from a senior member of the bar, Justice Srem-Sai.
Esinam Kporku is an attorney at Ecam Law Consult
Engaging the media as to how the entire process felt, Esinam admitted to being nervous especially when the experience of another senior colleague of her was questioned.
Nonetheless, the idea that one’s knowledge is what is most important, enabled her to think on her feet which saw to her great delivery.
“This is monumental and very elating for me, especially when I had to think on my feet. I am very grateful to my seniors for giving me this opportunity.
“This is my first day at the Supreme Court and I’m hopeful for more of similar experiences… To be honest, I was very nervous especially when the lawyer before me had been questioned with respect to his experience at the bar,” she said.
She added, “I took consolation in the fact that it is not necessarily to a large extent about experience but that which you also know and God being so good, I was able to make my submission to the admiration of the bench” after court proceedins.
Justice Srem-Sai took to Twitter to share insights into the responsibilities and challenges faced by young lawyers like Esinam, who, with only two years of experience at the Bar, were entrusted with making submissions before the apex court by their superiors.
“One of the things that senior lawyers do – particularly when a young lawyer has earned their confidence – is to throw the young lawyer into kind of an ambush in a huge court.
“They’d, usually, simply, tell the young lawyer to go take an adjournment or to deliver a simple message to the court – it is called ‘limited instruction’. On this limited instruction, the unsuspecting young lawyer gets to the court only to be ambushed by the judges – she’d, often, be ordered by the court to conduct the entire business for the day (after all she’s as licensed as the senior lawyer).
Now, the test really is this: an illustrious and diligent young lawyer would discharge herself creditably and, thereby, gain her kind of “independence”,” his post read in part.
One of the things that senior lawyers do – particularly when a young lawyer has earned their confidence – is to throw the young lawyer into kind of an ambush in a huge court. They’d, usually, simply, tell the young lawyer to go take an adjournment or to deliver a simple message… https://t.co/nSQTgtfReZ
Srem-Sai pointed out the potential challenges that many young lawyers might face when given such significant opportunities, emphasizing that Esinam’s performance in a major constitutional case involving the president and vice president was deserving of extra commendation.
“She argued her case with such clarity of thought and speech, and with such grace that the entire Court – from the gallery, through the wells, up to the bench flamed up into spontaneous applause for her. The dream of every lawyer, right? She’s earned her repute among her peers,” he concluded his post.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has fixed February 28, 2024, to deliver judgement on the case.
Esinam Kporku, Esq, gained media attention on December 13, 2023, following a report highlighting her impressive performance in a high-profile case at the Supreme Court.
The report noted that her strong delivery garnered praise from the Chief Justice and other Justices on the bench.
Esinam Kporku, an attorney at Ecam Law Consult, played the role of lead counsel for the New Patriotic Party Bono Regional Chairman, Kwame Baffoe (Abronye DC), during a hearing at the Supreme Court.
The case involved a lawsuit against the Attorney General, urging the government to reverse the proposed emoluments for the First and Second Ladies as recommended by the Prof Yaa Ntiamoah-Baidu-led Committee.
The 7-member panel overseeing the case, led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, also included Justice Gabriel Pwamang, Justice Lovelace Johnson, Justice Prof. Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Justice Barbara AckahYensu, Justice Ernest Gawu, and Justice Samuel Asiedu.
Shortly after the report, Esinam received commendation from a senior member of the bar, Justice Srem-Sai.
He took to Twitter to share insights into the responsibilities and challenges faced by young lawyers like Esinam, who, with only two years of experience at the Bar, were entrusted with making submissions before the apex court by their superiors.
“One of the things that senior lawyers do – particularly when a young lawyer has earned their confidence – is to throw the young lawyer into kind of an ambush in a huge court.
“They’d, usually, simply, tell the young lawyer to go take an adjournment or to deliver a simple message to the court – it is called ‘limited instruction’. On this limited instruction, the unsuspecting young lawyer gets to the court only to be ambushed by the judges – she’d, often, be ordered by the court to conduct the entire business for the day (after all she’s as licensed as the senior lawyer).
Now, the test really is this: an illustrious and diligent young lawyer would discharge herself creditably and, thereby, gain her kind of “independence”,” his post read in part.
One of the things that senior lawyers do – particularly when a young lawyer has earned their confidence – is to throw the young lawyer into kind of an ambush in a huge court. They’d, usually, simply, tell the young lawyer to go take an adjournment or to deliver a simple message… https://t.co/nSQTgtfReZ
Srem-Sai pointed out the potential challenges that many young lawyers might face when given such significant opportunities, emphasizing that Esinam’s performance in a major constitutional case involving the president and vice president was deserving of extra commendation.
“She argued her case with such clarity of thought and speech, and with such grace that the entire Court – from the gallery, through the wells, up to the bench flamed up into spontaneous applause for her. The dream of every lawyer, right? She’s earned her repute among her peers,” he concluded his post.
After the proceedings, Esinam Kporku shared her feelings about being praised by the justices of the Supreme Court.
“This is monumental and very elating for me, especially when I had to think on my feet. I am very grateful to my seniors for giving me this opportunity.
“This is my first day at the Supreme Court and I’m hopeful for more of similar experiences… To be honest, I was very nervous especially when the lawyer before me had been questioned with respect to his experience at the bar,” she said.
She added, “I took consolation in the fact that it is not necessarily to a large extent about experience but that which you also know and God being so good, I was able to make my submission to the admiration of the bench”.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has fixed February 28, 2024, to deliver judgement on the case.
The Supreme Court of Ghana has debunked the claim made by the Numo Nmashie family of Teshie, asserting that they are not the rightful owners of 70 villages encompassing more than 72,000 acres of land in the Greater Accra Region.
The court’s ruling challenges the family’s long-standing assertion of ownership, opening a new chapter in the intricate landscape of land rights in the region.
As reported by graphic.com.gh, a definitive stance has been taken by a five-member panel of the court, presided over by Chief Justice Justice Gertrude Torkornoo. The panel emphasized that the Numo Nmashie family holds no valid claim to the mentioned land. This assertion contradicts a Court of Appeal decision in 1982 that had previously declared them as owners of the contested piece of land.
In a report by graphic.com.gh, a decisive position has been established by a five-member court panel led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo. The panel unequivocally stated that the Numo Nmashie family lacks a legitimate claim to the specified land. This assertion stands in direct contradiction to a 1982 Court of Appeal decision that had previously recognized them as owners of the disputed piece of land.
It, therefore, ordered the Lands Commission to expunge all registrations and certificates issued to the Numo Nmashie family of Teshie, and the Tetteh Olewolon Family, in respect of the 72,000 acres.
The villages affected by the decision are Peduase, Obuom, Nsakye, Agyemanti, Brotrease, Danfa, Adoteiman, Otinibi, Malidzano, Okyrekomfo Kotei, Taboadidi, Ayim, Adenkrebi, Abefia, Ayimensa, Kweiman, Odonkorkurom and Kwadwokurom.
The clarification by the Supreme Court was an affirmation of its judgment dated March 22, 2023, in favour of the Boi Stool and 13 others.
The panel that made the judgment had Justice Jones Victor Mawulorm Dotse, as the presiding judge, with Justices Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu, Nene Abayateye Ofoe Amegatcher, Avril Lovelace-Johnson and Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi, as members.
The organizers of the Fix the Country protest, Democracy Hub Ghana, have taken legal action by filing an application at the Supreme Court to challenge an injunction sought by the Ghana Police Service.
The police are attempting to prevent the group from conducting their planned month-long protest in December.
Earlier in the month, the Ghana Police Service had filed an application at the High Court seeking an order to prohibit three groups, including Democracy Hub Ghana, from holding demonstrations during the Yuletide season.
During a news conference in Accra on Thursday, one of the group’s conveners, Naa Densuah, not only reiterated the reasons for the protest but also announced a modification of their initial schedule, moving it to December 30 to 31, 2023.
“We understand the frustration and the desire for a brighter future; the spirit of Christmas is a time of hope and renewal. In response to the unjust injunction, we have filed an application at the Supreme Court, seeking to quash these impediments to our constitutional rights to protest. We believe in the strength of our case and are committed to defending the democratic principles we hold dear.”
“As a result of the injunction, we are forced to make significant adjustments to the schedule we announced previously. We are planning to hold the demonstration from December 30-31. We will be providing more information about this in due course,” a convener for the Fix the Country Movement said.
Naa Densuah made an appeal to Ghanaians, urging them to support the legal efforts of Democracy Hub Ghana by contributing to their legal fund.
“In the interim, we call on all Ghanaians to support our legal team by contributing to the legal fund. Your donations will enable us to navigate this illegal challenge. We call on all citizens to organize a peaceful and impactful protest,” she advised.
President Akufo-Addo has nominated three Court of Appeal Justices to fill the vacancies on the Supreme Court bench left by three Justices who retired earlier this year.
The appointed Justices—Henry Anthony Cofie, Yaw Asare Darko, and Richard Agyei Frimpong—will step in following the retirements of Justice Nene Abayeteye Ofoe Amegatcher in February 2023, former Chief Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah in May 2023, and Justice Jones Dotse in June 2023.
The President’s decision has been forwarded to the Parliament’s Appointments Committee for consideration and report, as announced by the First Deputy Speaker, Joseph Osei-Owusu.
“Over the last few months, in February, May and June respectively, three vacancies have been created on the Supreme Court bench which now by convention having regard to its excessive jurisdiction comprises the Chief Justice and 15 other court justices.
These vacancies have occurred as a result of the mandatory retirement of Justice Nene Abayeteye Ofoe Amegatcher, on 3rd February 2023, former Chief Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah on 24th May 2023, and Justice Jones Dotse on 8th June 2023. There are now 13 justices of the Supreme Court including the Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo,” an excerpt of the President’s letter to Parliament read.
The Supreme Court bench is currently composed of the Chief Justice and 13 additional Justices.
President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo has reportedly put forward new nominations for appointments to the Supreme Court of Ghana, the country’s highest judicial body.
As reported by graphic.com.gh, the president has selected three justices for the Supreme Court: Justice Anthony Kwofie, Justice Yaw Asare Darko, and Justice Adjei Frimpong, all currently serving on the Court of Appeal.
These nominations are intended to fill vacancies resulting from the mandatory retirement of three former Supreme Court justices, including former Chief Justice Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah, Justice Nene Abayateye Ofoe Amegatcher, and Justice Jones Victor Mawulorm Dotse.
The news has been affirmed by Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, the Member of Parliament (MP) for South Dayi, in a post shared on X on Friday, November 10, 2023.
“Breaking News: The Prez has made fresh Nominations for the Supreme Court:
“1. Justice Anthony Kwofie, JA; 2. Justice Yaw Asare Darko, JA; 3. Justice Adjei Frimpong, JA” the South Dayi legislator wrote.
This would be the 18th nomination for the nation’s highest court made by President Akufo-Addo.
The Ghanaian Parliament has approved each of the president’s fifteen nominations for the Supreme Court.
In a significant legal decision, the Supreme Court of Ghana has upheld the ownership rights of the Nungua Stool over the disputed Adjiringanor/Borteyman Lands, concluding a prolonged legal dispute initiated by Empire Builders Ltd, which had laid claim to a substantial portion of the land.
This dispute traces its origins back to 1999 when Empire Builders filed a lawsuit against Top Kings Enterprise Ltd, seeking a declaration of title to a 456.25-acre parcel of land in Adjiringanor-North, Accra. Empire Builders also sought general damages for trespass, a perpetual injunction against interference with their land, and the annulment of Top Kings’ land certificate.
The legal battle persisted with Empire Builders appealing to both the Court of Appeal and, ultimately, the Supreme Court. However, in the final judgment, the Supreme Court found no substantial basis for an appellate intervention with the trial High Court’s findings and upheld the ownership rights of the Nungua Stool.
The Supreme Court emphasized that Empire Builders failed to substantiate their title to the land, and there was compelling evidence supporting the Nungua Stool’s claim as the rightful owner.
The court also noted that the Nungua Stool had been granting leases to its subjects, and the Government of the Gold Coast had acquired land from the Nungua Stool in the 1940s.
Subsequently, Empire Builders pursued a separate lawsuit at the Adenta High Court, which was also dismissed. In response to this, the Paramount Chief of Nungua Traditional Area issued a stern warning to encroachers, urging them to cease their actions immediately.
The Paramount Chief emphasized that individuals or groups encroaching on the Borteyman Lands should anticipate legal repercussions. However, those who had legitimately acquired leases from the Nungua Stool were encouraged to approach the palace with their documents for verification.
The Nungua Stool further announced plans for a comprehensive exercise, potentially involving the removal of illegal structures on the disputed land. Homeowners were assured of their safety and promised “fatherly care.”
This protracted legal battle, spanning over two decades, has conclusively established the Nungua Stool as the rightful owner of the Adjiringanor/Borteyman Lands. Encroachers and those who may have been misled by previous claims have received a clear and urgent warning to rectify their positions.
“On this note, as the Paramount Chief of Nungua Traditional Area and the occupant of the Nungua Stool, I’m sounding a warning to the unscrupulous encroachers, being individuals or group of individuals on the Borteyman Lands to desist from their actions immediately before they face the full rigors’ of the law. Those who think they have legitimately acquired the lease from the Nungua Stool should report to the palace with their document in no time for authentication.
“We are assuring all and sundry that by the end of this year there is going to be a massive exercise, you can call it demolishing if you wish, so the earlier you report to the palace, the better for you,” the Nungua traditional council stated.
Vice President of IMANI Africa, Bright Simons, has reacted to Justice William Atuguba’s (Rtd) description of the court’s judgement in the trial of the Member of Parliament for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson, as ‘scandalous’.
In a post shared on X on Tuesday, October 24, 2023, Bright Simons said that comments by the former justice of the apex court of Ghana are serious and an indication that not all is well with the court.
He added that if care is not taken, the Supreme Court would ‘sink’ in the future.
“For a former Justice of the Apex Court and one-time senior-most Justice on that same court to break ranks this way, you can judge how low the standing of the Supreme Court is bound to sink if it does not do the necessary soul-searching,” he wrote.
Speaking at a public lecture on ‘Protecting Our Democracy: The Role of the Judiciary’, on Tuesday, Justice Atuguba described the ruling of the court on the trial of Assin North legislator James Gyakye Quayson as scandalous.
He clarified that the court should not have entertained the case initially since it had already been adjudicated by the High Court.
Such a decision, he argued, contradicts fundamental legal principles.
Furthermore, he emphasised that the Supreme Court should have upheld the High Court’s decision rather than initiating a new trial.
“The decision in the Gyakye Quayson case was scandalous. The Supreme Court re-adjudicated the matter already decided by the High Court,” he said.
Justice Atuguba asserted that the Supreme Court made an error in its decision to invalidate Quayson’s election victory.
This decision came despite the Member of Parliament’s clear renunciation of his Canadian citizenship in November 2020, just a month before the December 2020 election.
He pointed out the inconsistency of the court’s stance, questioning the rationale behind the court’s assertion that Quayson owed allegiance to Canada, especially when the court had cited the renunciation certificate issued in 2019 as evidence to the contrary.
Former Appeals Court judge, Justice Saeed Kwaku Gyan, has expressed his disappointment with the Supreme Court’s handling of the 2020 election petition.
Justice Gyan accused the Court of shielding Electoral Commissioner, Jean Mensa, from being held accountable for her role in the election process.
During a public lecture organized by Solidare Ghana in collaboration with the University of Ghana, Justice Gyan criticized the Court’s decision to prevent Jean Mensa from testifying. The event, held under the theme “Protecting Our Democracy: The Role of the Judiciary,” provided a platform for the former judge to voice his concerns.
In his address at the University of Ghana, Justice Gyan emphasized the importance of accountability and transparency in the democratic process.
He argued that Jean Mensa should have been allowed to testify to provide an account of the electoral process to the people of Ghana.
“The Electoral Commissioner was the returning officer. She was accountable to the people of this country. And the Supreme Court ought to have allowed her to go into the witness box and account for the people of this country. They shielded to the detriment of our country for today, and maybe for tomorrow,” he said on Tuesday, October 24.
Justice Gyan condemned the Supreme Court’s unwillingness to hold institutions accountable and suggested that this decision might have lasting consequences for the nation.
“And it is a very, very shameful situation. It doesn’t show that our Supreme Court is prepared to make our institutions accountable. If they cannot vote, even the EC, how can they hold the President accountable?”
His comments provide valuable insights into the ongoing discussions surrounding the judiciary’s role in upholding democracy, emphasizing the crucial need for transparency and accountability within the electoral process.
This particular case was initiated by John Dramani Mahama, the 2020 Presidential Candidate of the National Democratic Congress (NDC).
He is a former President of Ghana who had previously lost the 2016 election and subsequently contested the 2020 polls with the aim of returning to power.
In line with the established procedures for hearing petitions in Ghana, Mr. Mahama included Ghana’s electoral management body, the Electoral Commission, and Nana Akufo-Addo as respondents.
Former Supreme Court Justice, Justice William Atuguba, has delivered strong criticism of the Supreme Court of Ghana’s recent ruling in the case of the Assin North legislator, Gyakye Quayson, during a public lecture on Tuesday, October 24, 2023.
In his address, the retired Supreme Court judge characterized the court’s decision as “scandalous.”
Justice Atuguba argued that the Supreme Court should have refrained from taking on the case, asserting that it had already been adjudicated by the High Court.
He further contended that the Supreme Court’s decision to proceed with the case contradicts a fundamental principle of law.
“The James Gyakye Quayson’s decision by the Supreme Court is with all due respect scandalous in that the court, in the teeth of the settled maxim Res Judicata et non quieta movere, re adjudicated the same matter that has been adjudicated upon by the High court on the merits,” he said.
The case at the center of the controversy concerns the eligibility of Gyakye Quayson, the Assin North legislator, to hold office as a Member of Parliament.
He was removed from Parliament in May 2022 following the Supreme Court’s decision to annul the 2020 constituency election.
According to Justice William Atuguba, “the Supreme Court does not stand in good light with all due respect in disqualifying Gyakye Quayson, despite his clear certificate of renunciation of his Canadian citizenship as from 26th November 2020 whereas the elections were on December 7. I am not able to see substantial justice in this.”
In furtherance of his point, the former Supreme Court Justice explained that “the statutory processes for acquisition and renunciation of citizenship shot itself in the foot.”
“If the certificate of renounciation is so mandatory and conclusive why was it not conclusive in its effect to qualify Gyakye Quason when he received it, dated 26th November 2020, whereas the parliamentary election was held on 7th December 2020? Statutes, judgements, and documents must always be applied with consistency both in the letter and spirit. These must always be construed holistically and as instruments of justice since it is a well-settled principle that the duty of a court is to do justice and a court should not be turned away from doing justice.”
After having his name expunged from Parliament’s records, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) once again nominated Mr Gyakye Quayson for the bye-election in Assin North.
Mr Gyakye Quayson secured victory by amassing 17,245 votes, constituting 57.56% of the total vote count.
Charles Opoku, his primary opponent from the New Patriotic Party, secured second place with 12,630 votes, accounting for 42.15% of the valid votes. Bernice Enam Sefanu of the Liberal Party of Ghana received a mere 87 votes, representing just 0.29% of the total.
The Supreme Court in Nigeria has started to listen to the opposition’s argument about the presidential election outcome from February 2023.
Bola Tinubu won the poll, but his opponents, Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi, want the country’s highest court to change the decision made by the Election Petition Court, which confirmed Mr Tinubu’s win.
The legal problem could make things worse and keep dividing the country based on political parties.
It might take a couple of weeks for the seven judges on the Supreme Court panel to make a decision on the issue.
If the higher court agrees with the lower court’s decision, this would be consistent with what has happened before in elections in Africa’s most populated country. In the past, there has never been a situation where the result of a presidential election has been changed.
However, Abubakar has stated that he will provide the court with additional proof regarding the controversy surrounding the president’s alleged use of a fake educational certificate as evidence of his eligibility.
However, Tinubu is against the introduction of new evidence.
He is asking the court to not allow his opponent to give more evidence for their new claim.
The Election Petition Court said that the opposition candidates could not show that there were problems with the election.
The judges said that the people who started the petition were not able to show evidence for their argument that there was too much voting and that some voters were stopped from voting.
A fire broke out on Monday morning at the Supreme Court building in Nigeria, located in the Three Arms Zone of the capital, Abuja. The building houses the offices of several justices.
The cause of the fire is not yet clear, but eyewitnesses reported hearing a loud noise from the building before the fire started.
Firefighters were able to extinguish the blaze before it could spread further.
The Director of Press for the Supreme Court stated that the fire was caused by a “normal electrical problem.” Dr. Festus Akande, Director of Press and Information, also confirmed that some documents were burned in the incident.
He mentioned that the fire affected the chamber of one of the Supreme Court Justices but did not provide details about the specific judge who was affected.
Ghana’s judiciary is a cornerstone of its democracy, and the composition of the Supreme Court plays a pivotal role in shaping the country’s legal landscape.
Over the years, various administrations have appointed judges to the highest court in the land, and today we take a closer look at the Supreme Court judges appointed by Presidents Akufo-Addo, Mahama, and their predecessors.
A heated legal dispute has arisen among the offspring of the late Supreme Court Justice, Dr. Seth Twum, regarding the legitimacy of a purported will attributed to their deceased father.
Among the six surviving children of the late Justice, Abena Twum and Esther Twum, have raised objections to the validity of the will, sparking a legal conflict within the family.
This legal contention has arisen just a year after the passing of their father on May 25, 2022, and his subsequent interment on July 2, 2022.
As reported by The Chronicle, Dr. Seth Twum initially had seven children, with the first child having passed away. Among the children still living, namely Esther (second), Abena (third), and Evelyn (sixth), two are contesting the legitimacy of the will.
The plaintiffs are challenging the authenticity of the will against their half-siblings, namely Audrey Twum (fourth), Seth Kwame Twum (fifth), and Leonora Nana Yaa Twum (seventh), in addition to their mother Julie Twum.
The core of the dispute stems from the argument that the mothers of the plaintiff children were not legally married to their father at the times of their births, whereas Madam Julie was the legal spouse of the deceased.
The contested will, currently undergoing examination at the High Court, reportedly excludes any mention of the plaintiff children in the allocation of the late Justice Twum’s assets. These assets encompass diverse holdings, including land, investments, and funds maintained in his Barclays Bank accounts in both Ghana and the United Kingdom.
The properties in question consist of a Cantonments property leased to the Free Zones Authority, an adjacent ICON property to the American Embassy, a dual plot at Trassacco Valley, a residential estate in East Legon, and a tract of land in Abelenkpe – all situated within Accra.
The plaintiffs, via their legal action initiated with a writ of summons filed in January of the current year, contend that the defendants, purported executors and trustees of the disputed will, might have tampered with its content.
The plaintiffs assert that the circumstances surrounding the deposition of the alleged will at the High Court Registry on June 7, 2022, and its subsequent reading on December 21, 2022, were tainted by forgery, rendering the will null and void.
Within their legal recourse, the plaintiffs request an injunction to prevent the defendants, along with their associates, agents, and other parties, from engaging with any assets belonging to Dr. Seth Twum’s estate until Letters of Administration have been granted.
Furthermore, they seek an order for a comprehensive account of the assets held by the defendants and a reimbursement of the costs incurred in the legal action, including legal fees.
Just a little over a year after the demise of Dr Seth Twum, a former Justice of the Supreme Court, a legal confrontation has arisen within the family.
Two of his offspring have initiated legal action against his widow and four other siblings, contesting the distribution of his assets.
The pair argue that their deceased father’s Last Will and Testament had been fabricated by certain ex-staff members from his law practice, along with one of his daughters.
Therefore, Abena Twum and Esther Twum (the Plaintiffs) are challenging the legitimacy of a will that is claimed to have been authored by their late father.
According to a news article dated August 23, 2023, published by The Ghanaian Chronicle, the will currently under dispute in the High Court reportedly does not include any reference to the Plaintiffs when it comes to the division of the assets belonging to the deceased Justice Twum. These assets are said to consist of land, investments, and funds held in both his Barclays Bank accounts in Ghana and the United Kingdom.
“These properties include a Cantonments building leased to Free Zones Authority, ICON property, adjacent the American Embassy, a double plot at Trassacco Valley, a residential property at East Legon, as well as a piece of land at Abelenkpe, all in Accra.”
According to GhanaWeb checks the late Justice originally had seven children – the first child is late, the plaintiffs are Esther (second), Abena (third).
The duo, who have different mothers, want the court among other things to declare their father’s Will as deposited with the courts as forged and invalid.
They are challenging their half siblings (Defendants), Audrey Twum (forth and a lawyer) Seth Kwame Twum (fifth), Evelyn (sixth) and Leonora Nana Yaa Twum (seventh) and their mother Julie Twum.
Plaintiffs state that their respective mothers were not married to their father at the time they were born, however, Madam Julie was their late father’s legal wife.
Additional files from The Ghanaian Chronicle story:
According to their claim, the circumstances under which the purported will of the deceased was deposited at the High Court Registry on June 7, 2022 and read on December 21, 2022 was a forgery, invalid, null and void.
They are, therefore, praying the High Court for an Order of Injunction to restrain the Defendants, their Assigns and Privies, Agents, Servants, Workmen, Allottees, Grantees and Successors in interest, other Alienees and Relations whatsoever and howsoever described from dealing with all properties of Dr. Seth Twum (deceased), until Letters of Administration have been granted.
The Plaintiffs are also seeking from the Court an order for accounts on the properties of late Dr. Seth Twum in the possession of the Defendants.
Who was Justice (Dr.) Seth Twum?
Seth Twum is a former Ghanaian Supreme Court Judge. He served on the Supreme Court bench from 2002 to 2007.
Twum was born on 20 March 1937. He had his secondary education at the Achimota School.
He was nominated in July 2002 and was vetted in September that same year. A month later, he was approved by parliament and was sworn into office in November that year together with Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, Justice Stephen Alan Brobbey, and Justice Samuel Glenn Baddoo by the then-president John Agyekum Kufour.
He retired on 20 March 2007 at the mandatory retirement age of seventy (70) years.
A dispute has arisen over the estate of the late Justice of the Supreme Court, Dr. Seth Twum, who passed away on May 25, 2022. His two children, Abena Twum and Esther Twum, have taken legal action against four others, including his widow, alleging that their late father’s Will had been forged by former employees of his law firm and one of his daughters. The legal proceedings have been brought before the High Court, where the validity of the contested will is being challenged.
According to a report by The Ghanaian Chronicle newspaper on August 23, 2023, the disputed will reportedly excludes the plaintiffs, Abena and Esther, from inheriting any portion of the late Justice Twum’s estate. This estate comprises various properties such as a Cantonments building leased to the Free Zones Authority, an ICON property adjacent to the American Embassy, a double plot at Trassacco Valley, a residential property at East Legon, and a piece of land at Abelenkpe in Accra. The contested will allegedly makes no mention of the plaintiffs in the distribution of these properties, which also include investments and funds in Barclays Bank Ghana and United Kingdom accounts.
GhanaWeb investigations have revealed that the late Justice Twum had seven children in total, with the first child being deceased. The plaintiffs, Esther (second child) and Abena (third child), had different mothers from their father’s widow, Julie Twum.
The plaintiffs are seeking several legal remedies through the court, including a declaration that the will deposited with the court is forged and invalid. They are contesting their half-siblings’ (defendants’) claims to the estate, which includes Audrey Twum (fourth child and a lawyer), Seth Kwame Twum (fifth child), Evelyn (sixth child), and Leonora Nana Yaa Twum (seventh child), along with their mother, Julie Twum.
Abena and Esther assert that their respective mothers were not legally married to their father when they were born. However, Julie Twum was recognized as their late father’s legal wife.
The legal action is centered on the alleged forgery of the deceased’s will, which was deposited at the High Court Registry on June 7, 2022, and subsequently read on December 21, 2022. The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction to prevent the defendants from dealing with any of Dr. Seth Twum’s properties until Letters of Administration are granted.
In addition to the injunction, the plaintiffs are also requesting an order for an account of the properties belonging to the late Dr. Seth Twum that are currently in possession of the defendants.
Justice (Dr.) Seth Twum, a former Supreme Court Judge, served on the Supreme Court bench from 2002 to 2007. Born on March 20, 1937, he had an esteemed legal career and retired upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of seventy (70) years on March 20, 2007.
Rahul Gandhi, the leader of the Indian opposition, has attended parliament once more following his conviction in a criminal defamation case.
The Congress party leader was stripped of his title as a legislator in March after receiving a two-year prison term.
On Monday, two days after the Supreme Court postponed his sentence, he was re-elected as a member of parliament.
Outside of parliament, Congress leaders chanted slogans and handed out candy to mark his return.
Other opposition party leaders also expressed their happiness about Mr. Gandhi’s return to the legislature.
Mr. Gandhi represents Wayanad in the southern state of Kerala as a member of the Congress party.
Political analysts claim that Mr. Gandhi’s reinstatement as a congressman is a win for INDIA, an alliance made up of 26 opposition parties, as it allows him to run in the upcoming presidential election. In the election, the coalition intends to challenge the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The allegations against Mr. Gandhi stem from remarks he made at an election rally in 2019 regarding Mr. Modi’s last name.
Opposition parties have protested his conviction and disqualification, claiming that the BJP in power had targeted him. The BJP has refuted this, claiming that the case had been handled according to the law.
“Why do all these thieves have Modi as their last name?” Mr. Gandhi had questioned during a rally in the state of Karnataka in 2019. Lalit Modi, Nirav Modi, and Narendra Modi.
Lalit Modi is the former president of the Indian Premier League and is currently on the run from the country’s cricket board, while Nirav Modi is an Indian diamond mogul who is still at large.
Purnesh Modi, a politician for the BJP, accused Mr. Gandhi of defaming the entire Modi community in a defamation lawsuit he brought against him. Mr. Gandhi had contended that he made the remark to draw attention to corruption and that it wasn’t intended to disparage any particular community.
In March, a Gujarati court found him guilty and handed out a two-year prison term. A 2013 Supreme Court ruling that states a legislator guilty of a felony and sentenced to two or more years in prison stands disqualified from parliament with immediate effect caused him to lose his MP designation the day after his conviction.
The Gujarat High Court denied Mr. Gandhi’s appeal in July after the court granted him bail to appeal his conviction.
The trial court judge’s justifications for handing down the maximum sentence of two years to Mr. Gandhi, however, were deemed “without sufficient reasons and grounds” by the Supreme Court, who therefore on Friday postponed his conviction.
Additionally, it stated that the Congress leader ought to have exercised greater caution when making the remarks.
Chief Justice (CJ), Her Ladyship Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, has selected 12 out of the 42 High Courts situated at the Law Court Complex in Accra to function throughout the legal vacation.
Starting today, August 1, 2023, the Judiciary commences a two-month legal vacation, concluding on September 30, 2023.
During this period, the superior courts, including the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, and the High Courts, will be on a recess.
To prevent any vacuum, the Chief Justice has assigned 12 High Courts, along with certain lower courts, to conduct proceedings during the legal vacation.
During the legal vacation, the following 12 High Courts will be in session: Commercial Court 2, Commercial Court 10, Criminal Court 1, Criminal Court 3, General Jurisdiction Court 12, General Jurisdiction Court 9, General Jurisdiction Court 6, General Jurisdiction Court 3, Financial Court 2, Land Court 10, Land Court 3, and Probate Court 3.
Below are the presiding judges of those courts sitting during the vacation
1. His Lordship Justice Francis Obiri (Commercial Court)
2. Her Ladyship Justice Adelaide Abui Keddey (Commercial Court 10),
3. Her Ladyship Justice Ruby Aryeetey (Criminal Court 1),
4. Her Ladyship Justice Mary Maame Ekue Yanzuh (Criminal Court)
5. His Lordship Justice Charles Gyamfi Danquah (General Jurisdiction 12)
6. Her Ladyship Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay (General Jurisdiction 9)
7. Her Ladyship Justice Abena Amponsah Buansi (General Jurisdiction 6)
8. Her Ladyship Justice Marian Affoh (General Jurisdiction 3)
9. His Lordship Justice Edward Twum (Financial Court 2)
10. His Lordship Justice Kwame Gyamfi Osei (Land Court 10)
11. Her Ladyship Justice Jennifer Anne Myers Ahmed, (Land Court 3)
12. Her Ladyship Justice Sarah Aryee (Probate Court 3)
The Supreme Court has raised concerns about the continuous absence of the Member of Parliament for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson, despite filing applications at the apex court.
Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo highlighted the recurring pattern of the MP filing applications but failing to appear for the scheduled hearings.
During the proceedings, lawyer Justin Tarewagya, representing Gyakye Quayson, could not provide a satisfactory explanation for his client’s absence and offered an apology.
Justice Amadu Tanko, a member of the bench, cautioned lawyers against the practice of having counsel depose to the affidavit on behalf of their clients, as it might lead to complications.
The lawyer of Gyakye Quayson assured the court that he will advise his client to be present in future proceedings, emphasizing the importance of upholding proper legal procedures and active participation in court processes.
In a separate matter, the Supreme Court dismissed an application by James Gyakye Quayson seeking to quash a decision of the high court that denied further disclosures in his criminal trial. Gyakye Quayson’s lawyers argued that the trial judge erred in denying their request to direct the Attorney General’s office to provide additional disclosures.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that Gyakye Quayson’s application lacked merit, upholding the high court’s decision regarding further disclosures in the criminal trial.
The Supreme Court‘s ability to overturn government decisions was taken away by a statute that was passed by the Israeli parliament on Monday. This was the first step in a planned judicial overhaul that has polarised Israeli society and attracted vehement criticism from the White House.
The Knesset voted 64-0 to pass the contentious bill. The entire governing coalition supported the legislation, while all of the opposition politicians left the chamber during the vote.
Angry protesters gathered in sizable groups outside and tried to barricade the building’s entrance. Barbed wire and water cannons were used to stop them, and at least 19 people were taken into custody, according to Israel Police.
Thousands of military reservists – including more than 1,100 Air Force officers – said even before the bill passed that they would refuse to volunteer for duty if it did.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid said he would file a petition with the Supreme Court on Tuesday to block the law and has urged the military reservists not to refuse to serve until the court delivers its ruling.
The so-called reasonableness law takes away the Supreme Court’s power to block government decisions by declaring them unreasonable. Its passing could trigger a constitutional crisis – if the court declares the law itself is unreasonable.
The Movement for Quality Government, an Israeli NGO, filed a petition with the Supreme Court immediately after the vote took place, asking the court to declare the law illegal on the grounds that it changes the basic structure of Israeli democracy, and requesting that it block its implementation until the court has ruled on it.
In pictures: Israelis protest as lawmakers plan judicial overhaul
1 of 21
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who left hospital on Monday morning after having been fitted with a pacemaker, pushed the bill through despite Israel’s most important ally, the United States, issuing increasingly forceful warnings not to do so.
He later said the passage of the law was a necessary “democratic move” and he was “fulfilling the will of the voter” during an address to the nation. He also urged reservists to not refuse to serve. “The call for refusal harms the security of all citizens of the country,” he said.
In a highly unusual step, the US President Joe Biden weighed in on the policy and warned that rushing the changes through without a broad consensus amounts to an erosion of democratic institutions and could undermine US-Israel relations.
“Given the range of threats and challenges confronting Israel right now, it doesn’t make sense for Israeli leaders to rush this – the focus should be on pulling people together and finding consensus,” Biden said in a statement provided to CNN on Sunday.
Biden raised concerns directly with Netanyahu during a phone call last week and then called New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman to the Oval Office to make clear his stance on the judicial overhaul.
Speaking after the Knesset passed the bill on Monday, the White House said it was “unfortunate that the vote today took place with the slimmest possible majority.”
The Israeli stock market dropped after the vote, its main index, the TA-35, trading more than 2% lower. The Israeli Shekel was also weaker against the dollar, dropping just under 1%.
The fierce debate over the planned judicial overhaul has turned into a battle over the soul of the Israeli state. It has pitted a coalition of right-wing and religious groups against the secular, liberal parts of Israeli society and sparked the longest and largest protests in the country’s 75-year history.
The fight is happening against the backdrop of some of the worst violence in many years. The number of Palestinians, militants and civilians, killed in the occupied West Bank by Israeli forces is at its highest in nearly two decades. The same is true of Israelis and foreigners – most of them civilians – killed in Palestinian attacks.
Israel, which has no written constitution and no upper chamber of the parliament, has had a relatively powerful Supreme Court, which supporters of the changes argue is problematic. At the same time, the Supreme Court is the only check on the power of the Knesset and the government, since the executive and legislative branches are always controlled by the same governing coalition.
Netanyahu and his allies call the measures “reforms” and say they are required to rebalance powers between the courts, lawmakers and the government. Other parts of the planned overhaul which are yet to be voted on by the Knesset would give Netanyahu’s coalition more control over the appointment of judges, and would remove independent legal advisers from government ministries.
Opponents of the plan call it a “coup” and say it threatens to turn Israel into a dictatorship by removing the most significant checks on government actions.
Netanyahu was forced to pause the legislative process earlier this year, but resumed it earlier this month. He has argued that the Supreme Court has become an insular, elitist group that does not represent the Israeli people.
But critics say Netanyahu is pushing the overhaul forward in part to protect himself from his own corruption trial, where he faces charges of fraud, bribery and breach of trust. He denies any wrongdoing.
Another bill, already voted through in March, makes it more difficult for a sitting prime minister to be declared unfit for office, restricting the reasons to physical or mental incapacity and requiring either the prime minister themselves, or two-thirds of the cabinet, to vote for such a declaration.
Despite his victory on Monday, Netanyahu is likely to face more pressure over the reforms.
The mass protests that have engulfed Israel since the reforms were first announced in January and are unlikely to stop now. After hearing the law has passed, protesters outside the Knesset began marching around, chanting “We will not give up. We will not give up until it’s better here.”
The Israel Bar Association is already preparing a legal challenge to the bill, the lawyers’ group said Sunday. The Bar is also warning it will shut down “as an act of protest against the anti-democratic legislative process,” the statement said. That means the Bar Association would not provide professional services to its members, not that lawyers would go on strike.
The Israel Medical Association said it would go on strike on Tuesday in response to the law passing, its chairman Zion Hagi announced Monday.” The strike will not affect Jerusalem in light of the protests taking place there, the IMA said, and activities such as dialysis and cancer treatments will continue during the strike.
The law “will have serious consequences for the health system, patients and doctors,” the IMA added.
Israel’s umbrella labor union, the Histadrut, warned moments after the government passed the reasonableness bill that if the government continued to legislate unilaterally, there would be serious consequences.
The law still needs to be rubber stamped by Israel’s President Isaac Herzog, a formality under Israel’s political system.
Ghanaian tycoon Paa Kwesi Nduom has received approval from Ghana’s Supreme Court to proceed with a lawsuit in the High Court, challenging the suspension of GN Bank’s license.
This decision comes after the Supreme Court nullified the Court of Appeal’s previous ruling, which had barred Nduom from contesting the license revocation in the High Court.
On July 19, 2023, the Supreme Court affirmed the jurisdiction of the High Court to handle the lawsuit filed against the Bank of Ghana (BOG) in August 2019. With the highest court supporting the High Court’s authority, the way is now clear for further proceedings and a final judgment.
The case will now return to the High Court, where it will be evaluated on its merits.
In 2018, as part of an effort to restructure the banking industry, the Bank of Ghana revoked the licenses of several financial institutions, including GN Bank, which was under the control of Paa Kwesi Nduom’s conglomerate, Groupe Ndoum.
Nduom, as the founder of GN Bank, initiated a lawsuit in the High Court to challenge the license revocation.
However, the respondents, including the Bank of Ghana, argued that arbitration should be the appropriate avenue for contesting the revocation, in accordance with the Specialized Deposit-Taking Institutions Act.
The Court of Appeal had granted their request, leading to a suspension of proceedings in the High Court and directing the parties to pursue arbitration. Subsequently, Groupe Ndoum appealed to the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled in favor of Nduom’s position.
Groupe Ndoum, established by Paa Kwesi Nduom, is a multinational family holding company with Ghanaian and American roots, comprising over 60 independent businesses spanning various industries.
MP for Okaikoi Central and a member of the majority, Patrick Yaw Boamah, rebuked Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, the MP for South Dayi and a member of the minority, for expressing reservations about the quorum shortage in the House.
During a recent parliamentary session conducted on Wednesday, July 19, a debate over quorum in the House arose between two Members of Parliament, one representing the majority and the other representing the minority.
The session had to be adjourned because the required number of 92 legislators were not present for business activities to proceed, and this adjournment was initiated by Dafeamekpor’s application.
During the debate in Parliament, Mr. Boamah accused Dafeamekpor of engaging in mischievous behavior by leaving his committee meeting, which was being televised, and entering the chamber to raise the issue of quorum.
The Okaikoi MP argued that this action portrayed Parliament in a negative light and suggested that such conduct should be addressed.
Mr. Dafeamekpor, representing the minority, defended his motion for adjournment and refuted the allegation of being mischievous.
He pointed out that records indicated the House was not adequately formed for business activities, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the quorum requirement as determined by the Supreme Court.
“My brother Patrick Boamah makes the point that members come to sign and go for committee meetings, but he has forgotten that when you attend committee meetings, your attendance is marked again so that is not the argument because the Supreme Court says that anytime Parliament is convened there should be a quorum to be determined,” stated Dafeamekpor in response to the accusation.
The Supreme Court has awarded businessman and politician, Paa Kwesi Ndoum permission to appeal GN Bank’s license revocation to the High Court.
This comes after the Supreme Court overturned an earlier ruling by the Court of Appeal that barred it from fighting the revocation in the High Court.
GN Bank, which operated under the Groupe Nduom brand, was one of several financial firms whose licenses were terminated in 2018 as part of a banking sector clean-up effort.
Paa Kwesi Nduom, the bank’s founder, filed an action in the High Court to challenge the revocation.
However, respondents in the case, including the Bank of Ghana, asked the Court of Appeal to rule that the proper mechanism for disputing the revocation under the Specialized Deposit-Taking Institutions Act is through arbitration.
The Court of Appeal granted their application, suspended the proceedings in the High Court, and ordered the parties to arbitrate.
Following the Court of Appeal’s judgment, Groupe Nduom petitioned the Supreme Court for a reconsideration of the Court of Appeal’s decision.
After hearing the case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Paa Kwesi Nduom.
The Supreme Court has overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision that prevented the High Court from investigating the circumstances surrounding the revocation of GN Bank’s operation license by the Bank of Ghana (BoG).
In a unanimous ruling by the five-member panel of the Apex Court, presided over by Justice Gabriel Pwamang, it was determined that the Court of Appeal had erred in its judgment.
Back in June 2022, the Court of Appeal had ruled that the matter of GN Bank’s license revocation could only be addressed through arbitration, despite the High Court asserting its jurisdiction to investigate the issue.
Challenging this decision, Dr. Nduom and his legal team, led by Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, appealed to the Supreme Court.
On July 19, 2023, the panel, comprising Justice Pwamang, Justice Mariama Owusu, Justice Omoro Amadu Tanko, Justice Barbara Ackah-Yensu, and Justice Ernest Yao Gaewu, ruled that the applicants had alternative ways to address their grievances, including going through the Court.
The Supreme Court concluded that the Bank of Ghana had prematurely argued that the matter could only be resolved through arbitration, as the High Court had the authority to investigate the case.
“It was our view that the High Court was right to dismiss the rights of jurisdiction and to investigate the complaint,” filed by Dr. Nduom and his companies.
The apex Court said, Court of appeal erred in its ruling on June 7 2022 and the “ruling of Court of Appeal is hereby set aside.”
The decision of the Court of Appeal from June 7, 2022 that the termination of GN Bank’s license by the BoG may only be resolved through arbitration was contested by Dr. Nduom, a businessman who also doubles as the founder of the Progressive People’s Party.
Background
The Bank of Ghana requested on June 2, 2017, that the case brought by Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom, Coconut Groove Beach Resort Conference Centre Limited, and Groupe Nduom challenging the Bank of Ghana’s decision to revoke the license of GN Bank be referred to arbitration. A three-member panel of the Court of Appeal unanimously upheld this request.
The Court determined that arbitration, not the court, is the proper forum for such a dispute under section 141 of the Banks and Specialized Deposit-Taking Institutions Act, 2016, Act 930.
The Court further declared that Dr. Nduom and the other applicants had misrepresented their appeal of the Bank of Ghana’s ruling as a human rights claim.
As a result, the court suspended the High Court’s proceedings and submitted the case to the Ghana Arbitration Center.
However, Dr. Nduom and his attorneys, under the direction of Dr. Justice Srem Sai, filed an application at the Supreme Court to overturn the Court of Appeal’s ruling because they were unhappy with it.
Justice Henry Kwoffie was one of three judges on the Court of Appeal bench, along with Justice Eric Baah and Justice Novisi Ayine.
On July 19, 2023, Supreme Court rejected an application attempting to halt the passage of the Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill 2021, commonly known as the anti-LGBTQ+ bill.
Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo presided over the nine-member panel, which unanimously dismissed the application filed by Dr. Amanda Odoi, a Research Fellow with the Centre for Gender Research, Advocacy, and Documentation (CEGRAD) at the University of Cape Coast (UCC), along with another individual.
The court’s ruling was based on the lack of sufficient reasons provided by the plaintiffs to compel parliament to suspend its proceedings on the anti-gay bill.
Below are the nine Justices who sat on the application:
1. Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo
2. Paul Baffoe-Bonnie
3. Gabriel Pwamang
4. Mariama Owusu
5. Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu
6. Yonny Kulendi
7. Barbara Ackah-Yensu
8. Samuel Asiedu
9. George Koomson
Dr. Amanda Odoi withdrew a contempt charge against Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin for allowing the House to proceed with the Bill despite a pending case before the courts.
On July 5, 2023, the Parliament of Ghana adopted the motion of the Constitutional, Legal, and Parliament Committee on the Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill (anti-LGBTQI bill) during its second reading.
Currently, the bill is at the consideration stage, where the House will review it clause by clause and address the proposed amendments made by the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee.
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo, has dismissed a request to halt Parliament’s consideration of the anti-gay bill.
The court determined that it is not convinced to issue such an order at this stage, as the concerns raised will be addressed in the substantive case.
The decision comes in response to a case filed by researcher Dr. Amanda Odoi, who alleges that Parliament’s work on the proposed law violates the constitution. Dr. Odoi’s legal team also withdrew the case of contempt filed against the Speaker of Parliament.
Dr. Odoi is one of two citizens who have sued the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney General regarding the anti-LGBTQ bill.
She argues that her investigations confirm that the Speaker of Parliament has been properly served with all relevant court documents, including an injunction request to halt Parliament’s consideration of the law.
Despite this, she claims that the Speaker allowed the bill to proceed to its Second Reading in Parliament.
During the court proceedings on Wednesday, legal arguments were presented regarding whether the case should be temporarily suspended. The Speaker of Parliament was not personally present, but his legal team, led by Thaddeus Sory, represented him.
Lawyers representing Dr. Amanda Odoi were the first to address the court, with lead counsel Dr. Ernest Ako emphasizing the significance of putting the parliamentary consideration on hold and seeking the court’s intervention.
“Per the nature of the provision of article 108…assuming this bill goes through and becomes law and money is expended from the consolidated fund, we would not get the money back meanwhile Ghanaians would not get the millions that would have been spent on this law.”
“If the application is granted and Parliament does not proceed and the substantive matter is determined, parliament would just have suffered a little by not proceeding with the bill in the interim,” he stated.
Chief State Attorney Dr Sylvia Aduse told the court Dr Odoi’s legal team have failed to show how they will suffer or which right of theirs should be protected in the interim.
“He should have proved this balance of convenience well but we have not seen any evidence of that. The speaker is doing his duty and cannot be injuncted.” She said.
Lawyer for the Speaker Thaddeus Sory urged the court to dismiss the request.
“We pray that this application doesn’t satisfy any of the tests as set by this court and should be dismissed.”.
The panel presided over by the Chief Justice indicated a case meriting an injunction has not been made.
“We have considered the merits of this case and are of the considered view that a prima facie case has not been made to convince us to injunct the work of parliament.
“Neither have we been convinced to injunct an uncompleted work of parliament. The issues raised by this application for injunction are matters to be determined by the substantive matter. This application for an injunction is dismissed.” The Chief Justice stated.
Other panel members are Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Gabriel Pwamang, Mariama Owusu, Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Yonny Kulendi, Barbara Ackah-Yensu, Samuel Asiedu, George Koomson”.
Dr Odoi’s legal team have meanwhile withdrawn the contempt case filed against the Speaker of Parliament.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to announce its decision on November 22 of this year regarding the constitutionality and legality of the presence and situation of street children.
The case has been brought before a seven-member panel of the court by the non-governmental organization Child Rights International (CRI).
The court will determine whether the plight of street children violates various articles of the 1992 Constitution, including Articles 25(a), 28(1)(a), (d), (2), (3), (4), 13(1), and 37.
CRI, led by its Executive Director Bright Appiah, argues that the 1992 Constitution safeguards the rights of children.
By permitting children to become victims of streetism, the government allegedly infringes upon their constitutional rights to education, health, human dignity, and their social and economic well-being.
Streetism refers to the situation where children live and work on the streets due to a lack of family support.
In some cases, these children are trapped in exploitative relationships where their guardians or parents use them to financially support the household through various activities conducted on the streets.
The applicant, whose work seeks to protect and safeguard the social, educational and constitutional rights of children, is asking the court for a number of reliefs and declaration.
Among these are the declaration that theGovernment of Ghana is in breach of Articles 25(a), 28(1) (a), (d), (2) (3) (4), 13(1) and 37 of the 1992 Constitution for not taking urgent steps to ensure that children do not engage in work that constitute a threat to their health, education or development, and that children are not deprived of medical treatment, education or any social or economic benefit.
Again, the applicant is seeking an order directed at government to define by law penalties for child exploitation for begging or other forms of economic exploitation to punish all those who may try to benefit or gain money from children’s work; an order directed at government to improve the law on healthcare, by defining by law the provision of free primary health services to all poor children, children living in street situation or children in emergency situations.
Additionally, the applicant is seeking an order directed at government to provide rules and procedures to be followed for the provision of free basic medical services to poor children, children in street situation or children in emergencies.
Again, it wants mechanism to include agencies that can ask for this help on behalf of children and an order to implement mechanisms to control and enforce the legal framework guaranteeing education for all children.
It is further seeking order directed at the government for procedures related to school enrolment of children in street situations and their provision with the necessary didactic material; and also, an order for government to submit to the court, not later than three months from the date of final judgment, a plan of action detailing all the steps, strategies, and measurable targets by which the defendants undertake to obey and perform the orders contained in the reliefs the applicant is seeking.
Moreover, the applicant is seeking an order directed at government to submit to the court, two years from the date of final judgment and thereafter every six months until the expiry of the three-year plan of action, a report particularising all the steps taken, and targets met in obeying the orders of the court.
Member of Parliament representing the Assin-North constituency, James Gyakye Quayson, has lodged a new petition with the Supreme Court, contesting the Accra High Court’s ruling to hold his criminal trial on a daily basis.
Quayson is also requesting the apex court to prohibit further proceedings until the Attorney-General provides him with the complete set of documents related to the case.
During the High Court session on July 14, where Quayson pleaded not guilty to charges of forgery and perjury, his lead counsel, Tsatsu Tsikata, informed the court about the recent application filed at the Supreme Court.
Tsikata further mentioned that his client had also lodged an application at the Court of Appeal, seeking a stay of proceedings pending an appeal before the court.
Consequently, Tsikata urged the court to adjourn the trial until the higher courts make their determinations.
However, the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame, countered the request, stating that there was no legal basis to halt the proceedings while awaiting the outcome of the two processes.
Justice Mary Maame Ekue Yanzuh, presiding over the court, adjourned the matter to July 18, 2023, to rule on the application.
The charges against James Gyakye Quayson include forgery and perjury, stemming from alleged offenses during the the 2020 Assin North parliamentary election.
Quayson has pleaded not guilty to five counts, including forgery of passport or travel certificate, making a false statutory declaration, perjury, and false declaration for office. The prosecution asserts that Quayson provided false information to the Passport Office, stating that he did not possess a passport from another country when applying for a Ghanaian Passport.
Additionally, he is accused of making a false declaration to the Electoral Commission, denying allegiance to a foreign country when registering as a candidate for the Assin North seat.
Member of Parliament for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson, has initiated several legal procedures, including a new action at the Supreme Court, in an attempt to pause his criminal trial involving alleged perjury and forgery.
He is requesting additional documents from state prosecutors to fully comprehend the charges against him and is also seeking to suspend his day-to-day trial.
In response, the Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, has accused the legislator of orchestrating a scheme to prevent the court from hearing the case at any cost.
Mr Quayson’s lead counsel, Tsatsu Tsikata, informed the court on Friday about these new legal actions, emphasizing that they have the potential to impact the ongoing criminal trial.
“We have filed an application for a stay of proceedings that has been set for Wednesday the 19th of July at the Court of Appeal. We have also filed in the Supreme Court , a motion invoking the supervisory jurisdiction for an order directed at this court to quash the decision made on the 16th of July and another to prohibit the court from proceeding with the case,” Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata is quoted to have said by MyJoyOnline.com.
According to reports, the application filed at the Court of Appeal is connected to the High Court’s decision to conduct the criminal trial on a day-to-day basis.
On the other hand, the application at the Supreme Court pertains to the legislator’s request for access to certain evidence that he believes the Attorney General has not disclosed.
The Attorney General has urged the court to proceed with the case, emphasizing that neither the Supreme Court nor the Court of Appeal has issued any order to halt the trial.
“Respectfully, the prayer before you is without any basis. And I am not surprised he has not referred you to any rule of law. It is an attempt to deny the court the right to hear the case.It is an attempt to prevent the continuation of the trial and I pray the court to disregard the request,“ he stated.
The Court of Appeal has adjourned proceedings to July 18 to deliver its ruling.
A seven-member panel of the Supreme Court is expected to deliver a judgment on November 22 regarding the constitutionality and legality of the presence and plight of street children.
The suit was filed by Child Rights International (CRI), a non-governmental organization, contending that streetism violates various articles of the 1992 Constitution, including those protecting children’s rights to education, health, human dignity, and social and economic rights.
Streetism refers to children living and working on the streets due to a lack of family ties or being caught in manipulative relationships where guardians exploit them for financial support through street-related activities.
CRI seeks several declarations and reliefs from the court, including a declaration that the Government of Ghana has breached constitutional articles by not taking prompt action to protect children from engaging in harmful work and ensuring access to healthcare and education.
The organization also requests the government to define penalties for child exploitation, improve healthcare provisions, establish procedures for free medical services, implement mechanisms to enforce education guarantees, and submit a plan of action outlining steps, strategies, and targets for compliance with the court’s orders.
Furthermore, CRI calls for periodic reporting to the court on progress made in adhering to the orders, with an initial report due two years after the final judgment and subsequent reports every six months until the completion of the three-year plan of action.
Former COCOBOD CEO, Dr. Stephen Opuni has filed a motion with the Supreme Court, seeking to restart his criminal trial from the beginning.
The Court of Appeal had recently directed the High Court to proceed with the trial using the already collected record of proceedings, even with a new judge presiding over the case.
However, Mr. Opuni’s legal team expressed disagreement with this decision during a hearing on July 12th and announced their intention to request the Supreme Court to overturn it.
Chief State Attorney, Evelyn Keelson informed the court that the state had obtained a favorable decision from the Court of Appeal.
“The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal as rightly stated. What she didn’t add however is that we have appealed the decision at the Supreme Court. However, pending the hearing of the appeal, we are here for directions from your lordship,” Lead Counsel for Dr. Opuni, Samuel Codjoe stated.
He also informed the High Court, currently presided over by Justice Aboagye Tandoh, that they will require documents of all previous proceedings requested by the Court of Appeal.
This, he says, will allow them to evaluate whether any corrections need to be made before the case moves forward.
Justice Tandoh recognized that it was critical for all parties to have proceedings before the trial resumed. He has scheduled the case for July 25 for continuation.
Member of Parliament for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson, has filed an application for a review of the Supreme Court’s directive to have his name struck off the Parliamentary records.
The apex court on Wednesday, May 17, 2023, instructed Parliament to expunge Mr Quayson’s name from the House’s records.
Quayson’s legal team contends that the Supreme Court’s decision undermines Ghana’s constitutional and legal structure.
The objective of the review is to challenge the justices’ interpretation of the nomination deadline and raise concerns regarding the absence of proper procedural fairness in removing Quayson’s name from Parliament without a hearing.
It also said the Supreme Court judgement was fundamentally erroneous in ordering Parliament to expunge the name of Gyakye Quayson without giving him a hearing “and with no consideration as to the constitutionality of such a direction having regard to the constitutional structure and procedure of Parliament”.
The Supreme Court on June 22, 2023, granted James Gyakye Quayson seven more days to file a review, challenging the declaration of his election as the MP for Assin North as unconstitutional by the court.
But per the writ, Mr Quayson’s lawyers filed the application for review on July 5, 2023.
The writ noted that the seven-day period was rather “short, given the number of fundamental and basic errors of law that we wished to make submissions on.”
Mr Quayson’s lawyers filed a Statement of Case within the aforementioned period and later indicated that at the end of that Statement of Case, it would seek leave to add the further submissions by July 4, 2023.
Background
Following the 2020 presidential and parliamentary elections, one Michael Ankomah Nimfah dragged Mr Quayson to a High Court for contesting the Assin North seat while in possession of Canadian and Ghanaian citizenship.
The Cape Coast High Court after hearing both the petitioner and respondent in July 2021, nullified the Assin North election on the basis that Mr Quayson had dual citizenship.
However, Mr Quayson continued to parade himself as a legislator. This prompted the petitioner to take his case to the Supreme Court for interpretation of Article 94 (2) (a).
In April 2022, the apex court instructed the now former NDC MP to stop holding himself as an elected MP until the determination of the suit challenging his election.
The court also ordered him to abstain from any Parliamentary business and also refrain from engaging in activities pertaining to an MP.
Mr Quayson’s lawyers filed an appeal but the Supreme Court dismissed it.
In its ruling the Supreme Court noted that it would not ignore the submissions on the continued disregard of the orders of the High Court which have not been suspended or overturned.
According to the court, allowing Mr Quayson to remain in the capacity as MP “will be an indictment of the administration of justice.”
Meanwhile, Mr Gyakye Quayson has been re-elected as Assin North MP and sworn-in following a by-election on June 27.
Mr Gyakye Quayson on Tuesday, June 27, beat his closest contender, Charles Opoku of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the Assin North by-election by obtaining 17,245 votes out of the total valid votes of 29,962, representing 57.56 per cent.
Mr Charles Opoku, on the other hand, garnered 12,630 of the votes cast, representing 42.17 per cent while Bernice Enyonam Sefenu of the Liberal Party of Ghana (LPG) secured 87 votes.
But Mr Quayson’s position as MP hangs on a thread following allegations of forgery and perjury levelled against him by the Attorney-General in his involvement in the 2020 parliamentary elections.
Today, Tuesday, July 4, 2023, the High Court in Accra will resume the daily hearing of the member of parliament (MP) elect for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson‘s case.
The trial was adjourned on June 29 due to incomplete application documents received by the court.
Quayson has appealed the daily trial order in the Court of Appeal, claiming violations of his right to a fair trial.
His election as MP was nullified by the Supreme Court for holding dual citizenship.
Quayson now faces charges of perjury and deceiving a public officer.
Despite the ongoing trial, he is expected to be present in parliament for his swearing-in.
The Traditional ruler of the Dormaa Traditional Area, and President of the Bono Regional House of Chiefs, Osagyefo Oseadeeyo Agyemang Badu II, has publicly expressed his opposition to the Supreme Court’s decision to remove James Gyakye Quayson from his position as a Member of Parliament in May.
During the 10th Atta Mills Anniversary lecture held over the weekend, Osagyefo Oseadeeyo Agyemang Badu II openly disagreed with the initial ruling made by the Supreme Court, which nullified Gyakye Quayson’s parliamentary mandate due to his dual citizenship status.
The Dormaahene made it evident that had he been a member of the panel, he would have taken a different stance on the matter.
“I will like to talk about an Honourable person who was a citizen of Canada. He said he was not willing to stay in Canada, he dropped his citizenship and returned to Ghana to help. When he got here, he had a bit of a challenge and the Supreme Court ruled that his mandate as an MP should be nullified,” he said.
“Some of us were not happy with that. If I were on the Supreme Court, I would have taken a left position and not the right. The reason why I will opt for the left will raise another issue so I will not say it,” he added.
The traditional ruler appealed to both the President and the Attorney General, urging them to withdraw the charges leveled against the Member of Parliament (MP) in the high court. Osagyefo Oseadeeyo Agyemang Badu II put forth the argument that James Gyakye Quayson’s resounding victory in the Assin North elections should be duly considered.
Emphasizing Quayson’s impressive achievement of securing 57.56% of the votes, the Dormaahene pointed out that the subsequent by-election, in which the MP was re-elected by a significant majority, serves as a clear indication of the strong support he enjoys from his constituents.
“But I am pleading with the Attorney General of Ghana. As we know the constitution permits him to discontinue any case in the interest of the public.
“When the man [Gyakye Quayson] had his name expunged from parliament, didn’t they go to vote again? Was he voted for or not? Didn’t he get an overwhelming majority, 57.56%, is that a mere victory?” he asked.
The New Patriotic Party (NPP) suffered a defeat in the Assin North by-election, with James Gyakye Quayson of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) being sworn in as the Member of Parliament for the constituency. This followed the Electoral Commission’s declaration of Quayson as the winner of the election held on June 27, 2023.
According to the Electoral Commission’s announcement, Quayson secured a total of 17,245 votes, representing 57.56% of the overall vote count. The NPP’s candidate, Charles Opoku, came in second place with 12,630 votes, accounting for 42.15% of the votes. Bernice Enyonam Sefenu of the Liberal Party Ghana (LPG) received 87 votes, equivalent to 0.29% of the total tally.
The by-election in Assin North was conducted to fill the parliamentary seat left vacant due to a legal dispute over Quayson’s eligibility to hold office, as concerns were raised regarding his dual citizenship.
However, Gyakye Quayson now faces charges including perjury and deceiving a public official. These charges are related to allegations that he provided false information during the filing processes for the 2020 parliamentary elections, where he was said to have held dual citizenship in both Ghana and Canada.
On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court was expected to make a ruling regarding the legality ofPresident Joe Biden’s proposal to cancel $430 billion in student loan debt. This initiative aimed to benefit around 43 million Americans and fulfill one of Biden’s campaign promises.
During the February arguments of the case, the conservative justices displayed skepticism towards the plan as they considered legal challenges brought forth by six conservative-leaning states (Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Carolina) and two individual borrowers.
This dispute, one of two significant rulings expected on the final day of the term that started in October, carries high stakes for the 26 million U.S. borrowers who sought relief after Biden announced the plan in August 2022.
However, lower courts halted the implementation of the plan in November.
Biden’s proposal fulfilled his promise from the 2020 campaign to cancel a portion of the $1.6 trillion federal student loan debt.
Nonetheless, Republicans criticized it, deeming it an overreach of his authority and an unfair advantage for college-educated borrowers compared to others who did not receive such relief.
Biden, who is running for re-election next year, introduced a plan where the U.S. government would forgive up to $10,000 in federal student debt for individuals earning less than $125,000 and who took out loans to finance their college or post-secondary education.
Additionally, recipients of Pell grants from lower-income families would be eligible for up to $20,000 in debt forgiveness.
During February arguments in the case, Biden’s administration said the plan was authorized under a 2003 federal law called the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, or HEROES Act, which empowers the U.S. education secretary to “waive or modify” student financial assistance during war or national emergencies.”
Both Biden, a Democrat, and his Republican predecessor Donald Trump relied upon the HEROES Act beginning in 2020 to repeatedly pause student loan payments and halt interest from accruing to alleviate financial strain on student loan borrowers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
During the arguments, a Justice Department lawyer portrayed the debt relief as a benefits program rather than an assertion of regulatory power not authorized by Congress.
In response to the legal challenge brought by the states, a federal judge in Missouri in October 2022 ruled that they lacked the legal standing to sue. On appeal, the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that at least one of the states, Missouri, had proper standing.
In the case brought by individual borrowers named Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor, a federal judge in Texas ruled in November 2022 that the plan exceeded the Biden administration’s authority – a ruling that the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put on hold pending appeal.
Some 53% of Americans said they support Biden’s debt relief, with 45% opposed, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll from March, with respondents dividing sharply along partisan lines with Democrats broadly supportive and Republicans generally opposed.
The Supreme Court has cautioned the government against the practice where public service workers are directed to ‘proceed on leave’.
According to the apex court, it was not within the contemplation of the framers of the constitution that leave should be used as a form of punishment to get rid of unwanted workers and public service officials from their positions.
Thus, “We direct that the mantra ‘proceed on leave’ should from today be a thing of the past in this jurisdiction”.
This conclusion of the court is contained in its detailed judgment in the case filed by civil society organization, Ghana Centre for Democratic Governance and eight others challenging President Akufo-Addo’s directive to the Auditor General Daniel Domelevo to proceed on leave.
On May 31, the Supreme Court described the move as unconstitutional.
In 2020, Domelovo was compelled by the presidency to take 169 working days of accumulated leave.
The Centre for Democratic Development(CDD) and eight other Civil Society Organizations who described the move as an affront to the independence of the office applied to the Supreme Court for a declaration that the action by the President was unconstitutional and null and void.
The suit filed in October 2020 was necessitated by the failure of the president to rescind the directive after several appeals.
After a two-year hearing, the apex court delivered its judgment but deferred the release of its full judgment.
The First Deputy Speaker of Parliament Joseph Osei-Owusu has directed the Business Committee of the House to draft the anti-gay bill into next week’s agenda for deliberation.
The deliberation on the Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill was supposed to have been held this week.
However, upon enquiry from a sponsor of the Bill, Sam Nartey George, there have been two lawsuits filed against it.
One is said to have been filed at the Supreme Court while the other at the High Court.
After presenting the explanatory memorandum on the business statement schedule for next week the First Deputy Speaker and the Member of Parliament for Bekwai constituency declared that there is going to be a debate on the bill on either Tuesday or Thursday.
The Deputy Speaker directed the business committee to ensure that the bill will appear in the order paper.
However, the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin has been an ardent opponent to the activities of homosexuals in the country.
In his recent tour of the northern region of Ghana to mark 30 years of parliamentary democracy, the former lawmaker told journalists that he will prefer to die than to see activities of gays and lesbians legalized.
A motion submitted by attorney Tsatsu Tsikata in the James Gyakye Quayson perjury case has been criticized by Attorney-General (AG), Godfred Yeboah Dame as incompetent, unjustified, and ignorant of the law on criminal procedure.
The Attorney-General was opposing a motion filed by Tsatsu Tsikata seeking to set aside an order of the court to conduct a day-to-day trial of the case of perjury against Gyakye Quayson, the deposed Member of Parliament (MP) for Assin North.
Tsatsu Tsikata sought the authority of the court to suspend its day-to-day trial in order for Gyakye Quayson to pursue his desire to campaign and contest the by-election in his constituency occasioned by his sacking from parliament on grounds of ineligibility.
However, the Attorney-General, founding himself on severallegal authorities, argued that the application before the court was alien to the law.
“Every step that ought to be taken in criminal procedure is clearly regulated by the Constitution and the statutes of Ghana. The laws on criminal procedure from the Constitution to Act 30 and the Practice Directions on the conduct of criminal cases do not permit this application. ” Godfred Dame said.
He described the approach by Tsatsu Tsikata as a grand attempt to waste the court’s time which militates against a speedy trial.
Godfred Dame stated that, first, the Constitution enjoins a speedy trial of criminal cases. The Constitution is clear in Article 19(1) that “a person charged with a criminal offence shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court”. This provision in the Constitution is to ensure that criminal cases are disposed off in a speedy manner.
Further, the Practice Directions for trial courts issued by the Supreme Court in 2017 require criminal cases to be heard from day to day.
The Attorney-General also argued that per the provision of Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution, all persons are equal before the law. If a teacher or farmer cannot refuse to attend or resist a daily hearing of his. criminal case because has to go to work, why should a politician be able to avoid trial because he wants to go and campaign?
The A-G argued that a grant of the application would result in discrimination contrary to the Constitution.
The A-G pointed out that he cannot understand the claim of lawyer for the accused person, that, if his client appears before the court on 22 and 23 of June, the right to vote of the people of Assin North who are not parties to any case before the court, will be affected when none of the constitutional rights of the Assin North constituents have in any way been tempered with.
The AG supported his argument by citing Sections 168 and 169 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1960 (Act 30). He signalled the importance of Section 168, which is titled “Appearance of both Act parties”. The provision states: “Where at the time appointed for the hearing of the case both the prosecutor and the accused are present before the Court, or if the prosecutor appears personally or by counsel and the personal attendance of the accused person has been dispensed with under section 70, the Court shall proceed to hear the case”.
Section 169, which is on “Adjournment”, states that; “Before or during the hearing of a case, the Court, a) may adjourn the hearing to a certain time and place to be then appointed and stated in the presence and hearing of the parties or their respective counsel then present, and;
b) In the meantime, may suffer the accused to go at large, or may commit the accused to prison, or may release the accused on the entry into a bond with or without sureties, conditioned for the accused person’s appearance at the time and place to which the hearing or further hearing is adjourned.
On the basis of these provisions, the AG urged that the Criminal Procedure Act gives the Court the power to decide the venue, time and date for court sittings and no other person or authority has the power to determine same or to change it.
According to the Attorney-General, the case of Republic versus Eugene Baffoe-Bonnie, established that criminal trials must be prosecuted within a reasonable period of time and that the courts of first instance must do everything possible to sit as regularly as possible to ensure that this is achieved.
Tsatsu Tsikata, in opposition to the AG’s arguments, averred that a speedy trial did not necessarily mean a day-to-day trial despite it being stated black and white in the Practice Directions of the Court.
He further argued that his client had a constitutional mandate to participate in politics and that the right to vote of the people of Assin-North will be adversely affected if the case proceeds from day to day.
The trial judge Marie Yanzuh adjourned the case to Friday, June 23, 2023, to rule on the day-to-day trial. Her Ladyship, however, excused Gyakye Quayson from coming to court on Friday for the ruling.
The Supreme Court has granted the National Democratic Congress’ (NDC) Parliamentary candidate for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson, a seven-day period to file for a review of the court’s decision.
The apex court on Wednesday, May 17, 2023, instructed Parliament to expunge Mr Quayson’s name from the House’s records.
Quayson’s legal team today informed the court that they received a copy of the judgment late and requested additional time to contest the decision. Following this, the court issued its directive.
After the 2020 presidential and parliamentary elections, one Michael Ankomah Nimfah dragged Mr Quayson to a High Court for contesting the Assin North seat while in possession of Canadian and Ghanaian citizenship.
The Cape Coast High Court after hearing both the petitioner and respondent in July 2021, nullified the Assin North election on the basis that Mr Quayson had dual citizenship.
However, Mr Quayson continued to parade himself as a legislator. This prompted the petitioner to take his case to the Supreme Court for interpretation of Article 94 (2) (a).
In April 2022, the apex court instructed the now former NDC MP to stop holding himself as an elected MP until the determination of the suit challenging his election.
The court also ordered him to abstain from any Parliamentary business and also refrain from engaging in activities pertaining to an MP.
Mr Quayson’s lawyers filed an appeal but the Supreme Court dismissed it.
In its ruling on May 17, the Supreme Court noted that it would not ignore the submissions on the continued disregard of the orders of the High Court which have not been suspended or overturned.
According to the court, allowing Mr Quayson to remain in the capacity as MP “will be an indictment of the administration of justice.”
Parliament on May 29 wrote to the Electoral Commission (EC) declaring the Assin North seat vacant.
According to sources, the Clerk of Parliament, Cyril Kwabena Oteng Nsiah sent the said letter to the EC.
In a related event, Mr Gyakye Quayson is also involved in a criminal case over allegations of forgery and perjury related to certain offenses ahead of the 2020 Assin North parliamentary election.
The High Court has set June 23 to rule on whether the trial of James Gyakye Quaysonshould be put on hold after sitting for the hearing of the application to vary the High Court’s order to sit on a daily basis.
Mr Quayson has been permitted to be absent from the next adjourned date.
Justice Isaac Douse, a former Justice of the Appeal Court, has disagreed with the Supreme Court’s judgment that resulted in the removal of James Gyakye Quayson, the former Member of Parliament for Assin North.
In his assessment, Justice Douse believes that the justices who presided over the case made a significant error in ruling that Gyakye Quayson was ineligible to contest in the 2023 elections.
During an interview on CTV on Friday, June 17, 2023, as reported by GhanaWeb, the former judge stated that the ousted MP successfully demonstrated to the court that he had taken the necessary steps to renounce his citizenship, which should have been sufficient.
“You write an examination and you are given a result that shows that you have passed but you are denied admission because you have not been given a certificate yet. So even though you have passed because you don’t have the certificate, you don’t get admission.
“This is what the ruling of the judges means. They (the judges) erred bad time,” he said in the Twi dialect.
Justice Douse also said that the criticism the Supreme Court is facing over its ruling is justified.
He added that when Ghanaians living abroad get high positions in foreign governments they are praised but when one is going home to help, s/he is faced with unnecessary impediments.
Background:
The Supreme Court of Ghana, on May 17, 2023, ordered the Parliament of Ghana to expunge the name of James Gyakye Quayson as a Member of Parliament (MP).
Justice Jones Victor Dotse, Justice Nene Amegatcher, Justice Mariama Owusu, Gertrude Araba Torkornoo, Justice Prof. Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Justice Yonny Kulendi and Justice Barbara Ackah-Yensu declared that Quayson was not qualified at the time he contested the election 2020 in the Michael Ankomah Nimfah vs James Gyakye Quayson case.
According to the court, the ousted Assin North MP failed to prove that he had renounced his Canadian citizenship when he filed his nomination to contest the 2020 general elections.
Parliament subsequently declared the Assin North seat vacant, leading to the Electoral Commission of Ghana announcing a by-election on May 27, 2023, to fill the seat.
The ousted Member of Parliament for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson, would appear before the High Court in Accra on today, Friday, June 16, 2023, regarding the criminal accusations brought against him by government.
Quayson was recently ousted from parliament after the Supreme Court of Ghana ruled that he was ineligible to contest in the 2020 parliamentary election because he failed to renounce his Canadian citizenship in time.
But there is still one case the former MP has to face in court after the Office of the Attorney General accused him of deceiving public officers to acquire state documents.
The State, on February 12, 2022, charged James Gyakye Quayson with five counts; deceit of a public officer, forgery of a passport, knowingly making a false statutory declaration, perjury, and false declaration.
Below are details of the charges against Quayson in the criminal suit:
Deceit of public officer, contrary to section 251(b) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29)
James Gyakye Quayson on or about the 29th of July 2019 at the Passport Office, Accra with intent to facilitate the obtaining of a Ghanaian passport, deceived the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by making a false statement that you do not have a dual citizenship, a statement which you did not have a good reason to believe to be true at the time of making it.
Forgery of passport or travel certificate, contrary to section 15(1)(b) of the Passports and Travel Certificates Act, 1967 (NLCD 155).
James Gyakye Quayson on or about the 26th of July 2019 at the Passport Office, Accra, made a false statement that you do not have a dual citizenship for the purpose of procuring a passport, a statement you knew to be untrue at the time of making it.
Knowingly making a false statutory declaration, contrary to section 5 of the Statutory Declarations Act, 1971 (Act 389).
James Gyakye Quayson on or about 6th October 2020 at Assin Fosu made a statutory declaration that you do not owe allegiance to any country other than Ghana, a statement which you knew to be false in a material particular at the time of making it.
Perjury, contrary to section 210(1) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).
James Gyakye Quayson on or about 6th October 2020 at Assin Fosu, made a false statement on oath that you do not owe allegiance to any country other than Ghana, a statement you did not have a reason to believe to be true at the time of making it.
False declaration for office, contrary to section 248 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).
James Gyakye Quayson on or about 8th October 2020 at the Electoral Commission Office, Accra, knowingly used a declaration that you do not owe allegiance to any country other than Ghana for the purpose of obtaining a public office as a Member of Parliament, a statement you knew to be material for obtaining that office.
The Supreme Court says the orders made by Justice Emmanuel Ankamah, who sat on the case of the Estate of the late Rev. Emmanuel Dorgadzi at the Tema High Court, were made in clear breach of natural justice.
The Court held that the applicants were not given a hearing of the suit pending before the High Court, Tema.
Justice Emmanuel Ankamah, currently a Justice of the Court of Appeal, is being investigated for dealing with a matter he had no jurisdiction.
A five-member panel chaired by Justice Jones Victor Dotse (now retired) also described as “sordid” the act of the Judge and the Clerk at the time, Sebastian Agbo.
The Court in its ruling released on June 12, 2023, prohibited Justice Ankamah from further hearing the case and quashed his orders.
The panel recommended that all officers who played roles in the “shameful” act be investigated.
Justice Dotse said, “in our collective wisdom, we deem it appropriate to refer this case to the Chief Justice to cause further investigations into the conduct of the trial Judge and Sebastian Agbo, then Registrar of the High Court, Tema under whose tenure the sordid affairs happened.”
“This should cover all officers who played any role in this shameful specie of conduct,” he added.
The Court urged the Chief Justice to cause investigations into the apparent devise by the interested parties to undervalue the estate of the Deceased.
He said the Counsel, who filed the application for and on behalf of the interested parties should be made to give explanation as to the basis of the valuations made in respect of the properties stated therein.
“It is the considered view of this panel that, such an investigation will unravel the phenomenon that parties have been adopting to undervalue estate of deceased persons in respect of whose estate’s they apply for Letters of Administration.
“We urge the Judicial Service to enquire into the circumstances that led to Sebastian Agbo, then Registrar of the High court, Tema being interdicted,” he said.
“For the avoidance of doubts, the said Judge Ankamah (as he then was), is also hereby prohibited from hearing or having anything to do with this suit or any related aspect of it whatsoever,” the Supreme Court ruled.
The applicant sought from the Supreme Court “an application for an order of certiorari to quash the orders/proceedings of the High Court, Tema presided over by His Lordship Mr. Justice Emmanuel Ankaman dated August 18, 2022, striking out the applicant’s caveat for want of prosecution.”
It also sought to quash the Letters of Administration dated March 18 2022, issued by the said court to the interested parties for an order of prohibition to prohibit the said Judge and the Registrar of the High Court, Tema from further hearing and/or dealing with the applications/matters in relation to the estate of the late Rev. Dorgadzi.
It was the case of the applicants that, the High Court, Tema presided over by the trial Judge failed to observe the rules of natural justice, specifically, the audialteram partem rule in Suit Number E6/199/2022.
The applicants also contended that the Judge had no jurisdiction or exceeded his jurisdiction when on August 18, 2022, he purportedly ordered for the striking out of the caveat of the applicants for want of prosecution in Suit Number E6/199/2022.
It was also their case that, the trial Judge committed a jurisdictional error in respect of the estate of the deceased when on the face of the record, the same court had earlier issued Letters of Administration over the same estate.
Ghana’s Apex Court has granted an appeal by Ghana Telecommunications Company, setting aside a previous ruling that awarded $16 million in damages to Ogyeedom Obranu Kwasi Atta IV, Chief of Gomoa Afransie. The ruling stems from a land dispute case that dates back to 2017 and marks a significant victory for Ghana Telecom in its ongoing legal battle.
The judgement, reported by graphic.com.gh, stated that in 2020, the Court of Appeal in Cape Coast upheld the High Court’s ruling on the case.
However, in a brief ruling held on June 6, 2023, delivered by the acting Chief Justice, Victor Jones Dotse, unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision, along with all accompanying orders.
The detailed reasons for this verdict are expected to be revealed later today, June 7, 2023.
The case involving a long-standing land dispute between Ghana Telecomm and the Chief of Gomoa Afransie, Ogyeedom Obranu Kwasi Atta IV, over a parcel of land at Gomoa Afransie took an unexpected turn as the Supreme Court recently ruled in favour of Ghana Telecom, formerly known as P&T.
According to the report, the bone of contention arose when Ogyeedom Obranu Kwasi Atta IV, acting on behalf of the Twidan Family of Afransie, filed a lawsuit against the company and the Lands Commission in 2015.
The lawsuit sought a declaration of title, recovery of possession, and special damages amounting to $4 per square meter of the land, alleging trespasses and unlawful occupation.
In 2017, the Swedru High Court ruled against Ghana Telecom, awarding the Chief and the Twidan Family damages exceeding $16 million.
The Court of Appeal in Cape Coast sustained the High Court’s judgment in 2020 and even doubled the number of costs initially imposed on Ghana Telecom. Ghana Telecom’s evidence demonstrated that the land had been compulsorily acquired in 1969, with payments made to the late predecessor of the Chief.
On the other hand, the Chief called upon two expert witnesses who claimed that the signatures on the documents were not authentic, suggesting that the compensation had been wrongly attributed.
Adding to the controversy, in March 2021, the Chief filed a petition with the General Legal Council, accusing his former lawyer of accepting a $100,000 bribe to influence the Supreme Court judgment. The lawyer vehemently denied the allegations.
After setting aside the previous judgments, the Supreme Court awarded costs totalling GH¢100,000 to Ghana Telecom, although the company’s lawyer had requested GH¢500,000. Acting Chief Justice Dotse presided over the case, with Justices Kotey, Owusu, Mensa-Bonsu, and Kulendi serving as panel members. Mr Ace Ankomah led Ghana Telecom’s legal team, while Mr Alexander Abban represented the Chief and his legal team.
This legal rollercoaster has captured the attention of many, and the Supreme Court’s decision has brought significant implications for all parties involved.
Supreme Court judge, Justice Jones Dotse, has officially retired from active service after 21 years as a judge today.
He was appointed acting Chief Justice following the retirement of Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah, who served as Chief Justice.
The 70-year-old has served as a Supreme Court judge for 15 years.
In his retirement speech in court on June 6, 2023, Justice Jones Dotse recounted special moments in his line of work and certain individuals he was privileged to work with.
He also expressed gratitude to his family and all who supported him while holding back his tears.
“I promised my family that I was not going to cry so I’m going to soldier on,” he said to the applause of the attendees of the event.
“All the good things have been said but today is a day of showing appreciation,” he added.
Chief Justice nominee, Gertrude Araba Torkornoo, in a speech, described Justice Dotse as a man who applied the principle of justice and fairness in his work.
“One only has to encounter his desperate quest to overcome abuse with justice in decisions such as Board of Governance Achimota School vrs Nii Aku Nortey II, Platinium Equity Limited and Land Commission… and Martin Alamisi Amidu vrs The Attorney General, Waterville Holdings (BVI) Limited and Alfred Agbesi Woyome to understand the fighter for justice for the deprived in the nation in Justice Dotse,” she said.
Profile
Justice Jones Dotse earned a law degree from the University of Ghana in 1976, and in 1978, was later awarded a BL in Law from the Ghana School of Law. He was called to the Bar in November 1978.
After three years as a state attorney, he spent 20 years in private practice. Justice Dotse served in a variety of capacities during this time while working as a lawyer, eventually reaching to the post of president of the Volta Region Bar Association. Additionally, he had a specialty in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).
In 2002, he was appointed to the Bench as a High Court Judge where he served for seven years. In 2008, he was appointed as Justice of the Supreme Court of The Gambia, a position he still occupies. That same year, he was in 2008 elevated to the Supreme Court of Ghana.
The veteran judge was part of different panels that handled the country’s two biggest political cases, the 2012 and 2020 Presidential Election Petitions filed at the Supreme Court by current President Nana Addo Dankwah Akufo-Addo, the Presidential Candidate, and former President John Dramani Mahama respectively.
The communications officer for the National Democratic Congress’ (NDC), Sammy Gyamfi has stated that he is confident that Gyakye Quayson will emerge victorious at the Assin-North by-election despite Supreme Court’s ruling.
Mr. Quayson’s name was expunged from Parliament as the Member of Parliament for Assin North following a ruling by the Supreme Court in May 2023 because he had dual citizenship.
The Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Quayson was not qualified to contest the 2020 parliamentary elections in the Assin North Constituency at the time he filed his nomination forms on October 9, 2020.
In a statement reacting to the Supreme Court’s full ruling which was released on Monday, Sammy Gyamfi said: “As a discerning and objective Ghanaian, judge for yourself if the Supreme Court’s decision to annul Hon. Quayson’s election is fair or not”.
“In all this, I am glad that the good people of Assin North, in whom sovereignty resides, will have the opportunity to do justice in this matter once and for all, on 27th June 2023. I have no doubt in my mind, having been on the ground and interacted with many of them the past few days, that they will not falter. And that, they will vote for Hon. James GyakyeQuayson. I have no doubt in my mind, that they will vote for justice and genuine development.”
The party maintained that Mr. Quayson’s attempt to renounce his Canadian citizenship was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Read below Sammy Gyamfi’s write-up
SAMMY GYAMFI ESQ. WRITES ON THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION ON THE ASSIN NORTH MATTER:
Folks, I have just read the 35-page judgment of the Supreme Court on the Assin North matter:
The following preliminary thoughts come to mind readily:
1. Section 20 (d) of the Representation of the People’s Act (PNDC Law 284) provides that a Parliamentary candidate must be qualified at the time of his ELECTION. Strangely, the Supreme Court of Ghana in their judgment says that, qualification must be at the time of NOMINATION (i.e at the time a candidate files or submits his/her nomination form to the EC).
2. The decision of the Supreme Court to annul Hon. Gyakye Quayson’s election is solely based on the fact that, at the time he submitted his nomination form to the EC on 9th October, 2020, he had not received his certificate of renunciation of his Canadian citizenship and that he received same on 26th November, 2020.
3. Even if we are to go by this strange position of the Supreme Court that qualification must be at the time of NOMINATION and not ELECTION, it is important to remind the Supreme Court that in the Nduom case, they held in effect, that the nomination period for an election, must extend beyond the submission of nomination forms and must include the period the EC uses to scrutinize submitted results, within which the EC is supposed to give candidates a hearing and an opportunity to rectify any anomalies on their nomination form. The nomination period therefore terminates after the EC has scrutinized submitted nomination forms, given candidates a hearing and an opportunity to rectify any anomalies on same and has reached a decision on the validity or otherwise of the nomination of the candidate.
3. In the case of the 2020 Assin North election involving Hon. James Gyakye Quayson, he submitted his nomination form to the EC on 9th October, 2020. However, during the scrutiny of his submitted nomination forms by the EC, a petition challenging the validity of his nomination from an NPP group calling themselves “Concerned Citizens of Assin North” was presented to the EC in Accra, whereupon Hon. Quayson was invited by the Director of Elections of the EC, Dr. Serebour Quaicoo to respond to the issues raised against him on 27th November, 2020. A day before he appeared before the EC at their Headquarters in Accra, that is on 26th November, 2020, Hon. Quayson received his certificate of renunciation of his Canadian citizenship. This is why after investigating the matter, the EC accepted his nomination as valid and cleared him to contest the election on 27th November, 2020 because he had already received his certificate of renunciation a day prior.
4. Note that the election was held on 7th December, 2020. Hon. Quayson applied to renounce his Canadian citizenship in December 2019. But for delays occasioned by COVID-19, he should have gotten his certificate of renunciation not later then June 2020. God being so good, he eventually received his certificate of renunciation on 26th November 2020 as conceded by the Supreme Court. This was 10 clear days before his election. Note that, Section 20(d) of PNDC Law 284 says that qualification must be at the time of ELECTION.
As a discerning and objective Ghanaian, judge for yourself if the Supreme Court’s decision to annul Hon. Quayson’s election is fair or not.
In all this, I am glad that the good people of Assin North in whom sovereignty resides, will have the opportunity to do JUSTICE in this matter once and for all, on 27th June 2023. I have no doubt in my mind, having been on the ground and interacted with many of them the past few days, that they will not falter. And that, they will vote for Hon. James Gyakye Quayson. I have no doubt in my mind, that they will vote for JUSTICE AND GENUINE DEVELOPMENT.
In a unanimous ruling on May 17, 2023, a seven-member panel of the Supreme Court upheld the petition challenging Mr James Gyakye Quayson’s eligibility and ordered Parliament to remove his name from the list of MPs.
The apex court noted that allowing Mr Quayson to remain in the capacity as MP “will be an indictment of the administration of justice” should it disregard the orders of the High Court which nullified the Assin North election on the basis that Mr Quayson had dual citizenship.
The Supreme Court has recently made available the complete judgment regarding its declaration of the election of James Gyakye Quayson as the Member of Parliament (MP) for Assin North in the Central Region as unconstitutional.
Below are the explanations the court gave for its direction to Parliament:
1. Upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 94(2))a) of the Constitution, 1992 of the Republic of Ghana the 1st Defendant was not qualified at the time of filing his nomination forms between 5th to 9 October 2020 to contest the 2020 Parliamentary elections for the Assin North Constituency as a Member of Parliament.
2. Upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 94(2)(a) of the Constitution, 1992 the decision of the 2nd Defendant to permit the 1st Defendant to contest the Parliamentary Elections in the Assin North Constituency when the 1st Defendant had not shown evidence of the cancellation of his citizenship of Canada is an act that is inconsistent with and violates Article 94(2)(a) of the Constitution, 1992 of the Republic of Ghana.
3. Upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 94(2)(a) of the Constitution, 1992 of the Republic of Ghana the election of the 1st Defendant as Member of Parliament for Assin North Constituency was unconstitutional.
4. Upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 94(2)(a) of the Constitution, 1992 of the Republic of Ghana the swearing in of 1st defendant as Member of Parliament for the Assin North Constituency was unconstitutional, null and void and of no legal effect.
