TIG Post

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Supreme Court to hear anti-LGBTQ+ bill suit today

    Supreme Court to hear anti-LGBTQ+ bill suit today

    Broadcast journalist Richard Dela Sky and researcher Dr. Amanda Odoi are set to present their respective lawsuits against the passage of the LGBTQ+ Bill before the Supreme Court today, Wednesday, May 8, 2024.

    These legal challenges have halted the bill’s progress from parliament to potential presidential assent.

    The lawsuits, led by Sky and Odoi, question the constitutionality of Parliament’s approval of the LGBTQ+ Bill, which aims to restrict LGBTQ+ activities and advocacy.

    President Nana Addo Dankwah Akufo-Addo has refrained from receiving the bill, citing the ongoing legal disputes.

    Sky’s case specifically targets the “Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill,” seeking a declaration of its nullity on constitutional grounds.

    His claims cite multiple constitutional articles, arguing that the bill infringes upon fundamental human rights guaranteed by Ghana’s Constitution.

    Among Sky’s requests are an order to declare Parliament’s actions unconstitutional and an injunction against enforcing certain provisions of the bill.

    The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear these cases from May 7 to May 9, 2024, as outlined in its cause list.

    President Akufo-Addo has pledged to await the Supreme Court’s ruling before making any decisions regarding the contentious LGBTQ+ legislation.

    Reliefs sought

    Mr. Sky in his writ is seeking four declarations and four orders as follows;

    i. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 33(5) of the Constitution of 1992, in light of Article 12(1)(2), 15(1), 17(1) of the ‘Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024’ by Parliament on 28th February 2024, Contravened the Constitution and is to that extend null, void and of no effect.

    ii. A declaration that the Speaker of Parliament contravened Article 108(a) (11) of the Constitution, in light of Articles 296(a)(b)(c), by admitting and allowing Parliament to proceed upon and pass The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024 into law as the same imposes a charge upon the Consolidated Fund or other public funds of Ghana.

    iii. A declaration that Parliament exceeded its authority under Articles 106(2) and 108(a)(ii) in passing “The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill 2024, as the same imposes a charge upon the Consolidated Fund or other Public funds of Ghana.

    iv. A declaration that, upon the true and proper interpretation of Articles 102 and 104(1) of the Constitution, Parliament lacked the requisite quorum to pass “The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values BilI, 2024.”

    v. An order restraining the Speaker of Parliament and the Clerk to Parliament from presenting The Human and Sexual Values Bill, 2024 to the President of the Republic for his assent.

    vi. An order restraining the President of the Republic from assenting to The Human and Sexual Values Bill, 2024, as such action will directly contravene the Constitutional safeguards of liberties and rights of Ghanaians.

    vii. An injunction barring any attempts to enforce the provisions of The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bil 2024, particularly those criminalizing same-sex relationships and related advocacy efforts.

    vii. Such further orders or directions as to this Honourable Court may seem to meet.

  • Four times Supreme Court has ruled against parliamentary decisions

    Four times Supreme Court has ruled against parliamentary decisions

    The 1992 Constitution of Ghana, especially its sections concerning the separation of powers among the executive, judiciary, and legislature, has faced significant challenges in the current era.

    Repeatedly, these three branches of government – the executive, the judiciary, and the legislature – have clashed over governance matters, each asserting its authority as prescribed by the constitution.

    Of particular interest is the tension between the judiciary and the legislature, often leaving Parliament in a precarious position.

    Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, has frequently voiced frustrations over Supreme Court rulings that nullify certain parliamentary decisions.

    Here are the four instances where the Supreme Court invalidated parliamentary decisions:

    Exclusion of 1st and 2nd Ladies from Article 71 Benefits:
    In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court declared that the spouses of the President and Vice President, known as the 1st and 2nd Ladies, are not entitled to benefits reserved for Article 71 officeholders, including ex-gratia payments.

    This decision challenged Parliament-approved recommendations for these benefits, leading to legal action by various parties, including MPs and private citizens.

    Striking Out Sections of the Companies Act 2019:
    The Supreme Court, responding to a constitutional matter, invalidated specific sections of the Companies Act 2019, citing inconsistencies with the 1992 Constitution. The court’s decision came following a legal challenge by lawyer Derick Adu-Gyamfi, who argued that these sections violated constitutional principles such as fair hearing.

    Invalidation of Parts of Parliament’s Standing Orders:
    In March 2022, the Supreme Court struck down portions of Parliament’s Standing Orders, particularly Order 109(3), which addressed the voting rights of a deputy speaker or presiding member. This action stemmed from a legal challenge questioning the constitutionality of the passage of the 2022 budget statement, where the 1st Deputy Speaker counted himself as part of the quorum while presiding over the session.

    Nullification of Sections of the Narcotic Control Commission Act 2020:
    The Supreme Court, in a split decision, invalidated Section 43 of the Narcotic Control Commission Act 2020, which permitted the licensing of cannabis cultivation for industrial and medicinal purposes.

    The court ruled that this section violated Article 106 of the 1992 Constitution, which outlines the legislative process. The lack of proper debate and transparency in introducing this section further underscored the unconstitutionality of the provision.

    “The mode of introduction of Section 43 of Act 1019 violates the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Accordingly, Section 43 is hereby struck out as unconstitutional.

    “The lack of debate on Section 43 of Act 1019 amounts to not only a direct violation of the letter of Article 106 of the Constitution, but also a violation of the spirit of the law.

    “There was conspicuously, no debate over such a critical shift in policy by Parliament. Needless to say, this conduct and mode of law-making defeats the transparency and accountability enjoined by the Constitution,” graphic.com quoted the court as having said.

  • Individuals with dual citizenship can become Chief Justice, Chief Directors – Supreme Court

    Individuals with dual citizenship can become Chief Justice, Chief Directors – Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court in a landmark decision has struck down key provisions of the Citizenship Act, 2000 (ACT 581), prohibiting dual citizens from holding top government positions.

    The ruling, with a decisive 6-1 majority, deems these restrictions unconstitutional, citing conflict with Article 289(2) of the 1992 Constitution.

    The invalidated sections of the Citizenship Act, specifically 16(2)(a) and 16(2)(h)-(l), had barred individuals with dual citizenship from roles such as Chief Justice, Commissioner of the Value Added Tax Service, Director-General of the Prisons Service, Chief Fire Officer, Chief Director of a Ministry, or holding the rank of Colonel in the army or other security services.

    The case, titled ‘Francis Osei-Bonsu v The Attorney General,’ brought to light the argument that these sections effectively amended the constitution, violating Article 289(2).

    The plaintiff, represented by Bright Okyere-Adjekum Esq., successfully contended that such restrictions infringed upon the fundamental principles outlined in the constitution.

    With this ruling, individuals with dual citizenship are now eligible for these significant government positions, marking a significant shift in Ghanaian law and governance.

    The effect of the decision is that persons who are dual citizens contrary to the dictates of section 16 of the Citizenship Act can now be appointed to positions or offices.

    They  include;

    1. Chief Justice,

    2. Commissioner of the Value Added Tax Service;

    3. Director-General of the Prisons Service the Chief Fire Officer,

    4. a Chief Director of a Ministry the rank of a Colonel in the Army or its equivalent in the other security services.

  • Dual citizens now eligible for appointments as Chief Justice, Chief Directors – Supreme Court declares

    Dual citizens now eligible for appointments as Chief Justice, Chief Directors – Supreme Court declares

    In a majority ruling, the Supreme Court has deemed certain sections of the Citizenship Act unconstitutional.

    These sections previously barred individuals with dual citizenship from holding positions such as Chief Justice, Commissioner of the Value Added Tax Service, Director-General of Prisons Service, Chief Fire Officer, Chief Director of a Ministry, or a Colonel rank in the army or other security services.

    The court’s decision, delivered in the case of Francis Osei-Bonsu v The Attorney General, invalidated these sections of the Citizenship Act.

    The Plaintiff, represented by Bright Okyere-Adjekum Esq., saw all their claims upheld by the Supreme Court.

    Citing inconsistency with Article 289(2) of the 1992 Constitution, the Supreme Court nullified the aforementioned sections.

    Consequently, individuals with dual citizenship, contrary to the stipulations of section 16 of the Citizenship Act, are now eligible for appointment to various positions, including those previously restricted.

    According to the relief sought by the Plaintiff, the nullified sections effectively amended the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, thereby violating Article 289(2) of the Constitution.

  • It’s illegal to pay Rebecca Akufo-Addo, Samira Bawumia salaries for being 1st and 2nd Ladies – SC rules

    It’s illegal to pay Rebecca Akufo-Addo, Samira Bawumia salaries for being 1st and 2nd Ladies – SC rules

    The Supreme Court has ruled that Parliament’s decision to approve salaries for the wives of the President and Vice President is unconstitutional.

    The court declared that this approval is inconsistent with the 1992 constitution, as the first and second ladies do not hold public office.

    The ruling came in response to a suit filed against the Attorney General in July 2021 by Kwame Baffoe, the Bono Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), popularly known as Abronye.

    Among other things, the NPP Chairman was seeking a “Declaration that per Article 71(1) and (2), the positions of the ladies do not fall under the category of Public Office holders.”

    The writ added that “… Per Articles 108 and 178 of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana: Parliament, cannot on its own accord, initiate or approve payment of any such emoluments which would necessarily be paid from public funds, without a bill to that effect emanating from and introduced by the Government and duly passed into law.”

    The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Kwame Baffoe, also known as Abronye, the Bono Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), in a case challenging the payment of salaries to the wives of the President and Vice President. The court declared that Parliament’s approval of these salaries is inconsistent with Article 71 clauses 1 and 2 of the 1992 constitution of Ghana, and therefore null, void, and unenforceable.

    A seven-member panel of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, granted three out of the four reliefs sought by Abronye. However, his fourth relief, which questioned Parliament’s authority to initiate or approve such emoluments without a bill from the government, was not granted.

    Meanwhile, a similar action filed by National Democratic Congress (NDC) Member of Parliament for South Dayi Constituency, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, was partially dismissed. Only one of his reliefs was granted, while the rest, which focused on the recommendations of the Professor Yaa Ntiamoa-Baidu Committee, were dismissed.

    The panel of the Supreme Court that heard the case included Justices Gabriel Pwamang, Avril Lovelace-Johnson, Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Barbara Ackah-Yensu, Samuel Kwame Adibu Asiedu, and Ernest Yao Gaewu.

  • I didn’t direct my staff to decline documents from Supreme Court – Dafeamekpor’s lawyer

    I didn’t direct my staff to decline documents from Supreme Court – Dafeamekpor’s lawyer

    Nii Kpappo Addo, the legal representative for the Member of Parliament for South Dayi, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, has refuted allegations suggesting he instructed his office staff to reject documents from the Supreme Court regarding the case concerning the approval of President Akufo-Addo’s new ministerial nominees.

    During court proceedings on Wednesday, it was revealed that certain court documents, including the notice of hearing and the Attorney General’s opposition to a temporary court order, were not received by the attorney representing the South Dayi MP.

    Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, presiding over the bench, noted that Nii Kpappo Addo, the attorney for the plaintiff, had allegedly directed a staff member to refuse any documents from the Supreme Court.

    However, in an interview with Umaru Sanda Amadu on Eyewitness News on Citi FM, Mr. Addo dismissed the bailiff’s claim, asserting that he did not issue such instructions.

    He mentioned the existence of video and audio evidence to support his statement.

    “We didn’t flee from our own case. We are supposed to be served with a hearing notice on the date that has been called by the court. So, I received a call from the bailiff of the court that he had a process for me. Unfortunately, on Tuesday, I wasn’t in Accra. He called me at exactly 10:50 am. So, I informed him that I wasn’t around, but I was going to give him the number of the plaintiff so that he could serve the plaintiff with the hearing notice or whatever document that he had. So, I sent him the number at 10:57. He acknowledged receipt.”

    “I was therefore very surprised to hear on Wednesday that this bailiff alleged that he walked into my office, and I had left an instruction that no process was to be received…Perhaps he didn’t know. We have a CCTV system in this place that has an audio capability. So, I have released the CCTV footage and the audio of his interaction with my front desk, and I have sent it to you. You can play it for the whole world to hear whether anyone at the front desk ever said what he said. What he did was a complete and barefaced lie,” he stated.

    He further expressed astonishment upon learning of the bailiff’s claim on Wednesday, emphasizing that CCTV footage and audio recordings from his office refute the allegations. He accused the bailiff of fabricating the story, labeling it a “complete and barefaced lie.”

  • Richard Sky’s anti-LGBTQ bill case is “frivolous”, throw it out – Sam George tells Supreme Court

    Richard Sky’s anti-LGBTQ bill case is “frivolous”, throw it out – Sam George tells Supreme Court

    Member of Parliament for Ningo Prampram, Samuel Nartey George, has entreated the apex out to throw out Richard Dela Sky’s case involving the passage of the anti-LGBTQ bill as it is “frivolous.”

    He made this statement when he expressed surprise at the Supreme Court’s prioritization of legal cases.

    “The principle the Supreme Court has espoused here, if you apply that to the Richard Sky case, that case also has to be thrown out, because it is equally very frivolous because the Supreme Court has no power to stay the hands of the president.”

    Specifically, he was shocked by the Supreme Court’s decision to address the case of South Dayi MP Rockson Nelson Dafeamekpor before that of private legal practitioner Richard Dela Sky.

    Dela Sky filed an application on March 5 with the Supreme Court, seeking a declaration that the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, commonly known as the anti-gay bill, is null, void, and of no effect.

    Sam George believes that the court’s order of proceedings would have been fairer if it had first heard the case regarding the anti-gay bill before addressing the matter involving the South Dayi MP.

    “What is surprising to me is that the Chief Justice has not called the Richard Sky case, which is almost four weeks old, before the court to hear that, but has called the case that was less than a week old. Because it is the same principle.

    “But if the judiciary is not being biased, if the judiciary is showing a mind of its own, especially the chief justice, showing a mind of their own, they would have called those cases because common sense is part of legislation and the work of the judiciary.”

    Meanwhile, the apex court has dismissed the case brought to it by Mr Nelson Dafeamekpor, noting that it is frivolous.

  • Supreme Court dismisses application for an injunction against approving President Akufo-Addo’s new ministerial appointees

    Supreme Court dismisses application for an injunction against approving President Akufo-Addo’s new ministerial appointees

    The Supreme Court has rejected a petition seeking an injunction against the confirmation of President Akufo-Addo’s new ministerial appointees.

    The petition, filed by Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, a legislator from South Dayi, was dismissed by the apex court, which labelled it as frivolous and an abuse of legal procedures.

    Today’s proceedings at the Supreme Court were marked by intriguing developments as the court deliberated on the petition brought forward by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) Member of Parliament.

    The fate of recently nominated ministers and reshuffled appointees under President Akufo-Addo was hanging in the balance.

    This petition was the basis on which the Speaker of Parliament had decided to postpone the approval of the new appointees following their vetting process.

    Dafeamekpor, in his legal action against the Speaker of Parliament (the 1st defendant) and the Attorney General (the 2nd defendant), contended that the President should have sought parliamentary approval before reassigning ministers whose appointments were terminated.

    President Akufo-Addo’s reshuffle on February 14, 2024, resulted in the removal of 13 ministers and 10 deputy ministers from their positions, while 6 others were reassigned to different portfolios.

    During today’s court session, there was a notable absence of the applicant, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, and his legal representatives.

    At one juncture, the court adjourned briefly to verify certain facts related to the case, particularly regarding whether the bailiff had properly served the parties, especially the Plaintiff, Mr. Dafeamekpor, with a hearing notice.

    The Attorney General criticised the conduct of the MP’s lawyer, labelling it as the highest form of disrespect towards the apex court and as professional misconduct.

    Despite the non-appearance of Mr. Dafeamekpor and his lawyer, the court proceeded with the case, leading to an interesting development as the NDC legislator’s attorney refused to accept court documents, including a hearing notice.

    The legal representatives for the Speaker of Parliament opposed the injunction application, arguing that it did not meet the necessary requirements for an injunction to be granted.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the case.

    The panel of judges overseeing the case included Justice Kingsley Koomson, Justice Mariama Owusu, Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo (Presiding), Justice Amadu Tanko, and Justice Yaw Darko Asare.

    Despite the absence of Mr. Dafeamekpor’s legal team, the Supreme Court ruled against the injunction application.

  • ‘Frivolous’ injunction application against new ministers’ approval thrown out by Supreme Court

    ‘Frivolous’ injunction application against new ministers’ approval thrown out by Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court has rejected an application for an injunction against the approval of President Akufo-Addo’s new ministerial appointees, filed by South Dayi legislator Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor.

    The court deemed the application frivolous and an abuse of court processes.

    The application was a focal point as the fate of newly nominated and reshuffled ministers appointed by President Akufo-Addo hung in the balance. It was the basis on which the Speaker of Parliament decided to delay approving the new appointees after their vetting.

    In his lawsuit against the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney General, Dafeamekpor argued that the President should have sought parliamentary approval before reassigning ministers whose appointments were revoked.

    President Akufo-Addo’s reshuffle on February 14, 2024, saw 13 ministers and 10 deputy ministers relieved of their posts, while 6 were reassigned to various portfolios.

    During the court proceedings, there was drama as Dafeamekpor and his lawyers were absent. The case was stood down at one point to verify if the bailiff served the parties, especially the Plaintiff, with a hearing notice.

    The Attorney General criticized the conduct of Dafeamekpor’s lawyer, calling it a form of disrespect to the apex court and professional misconduct.

    Despite the absence of Dafeamekpor and his lawyer, the court proceeded with the case. The lawyer for the NDC legislator refused to accept court documents, including a hearing notice.

    Lawyers for the Speaker of Parliament opposed the injunction application, arguing that it did not meet the requirements for an injunction to be granted.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the case. The five judges presiding over the case were Justice Kingsley Koomson, Justice Mariama Owusu, Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo (Presiding), Justice Amadu Tanko, and Justice Yaw Darko Asare.

  • US Supreme Court to maintain access to abortion drug Mifepristone

    US Supreme Court to maintain access to abortion drug Mifepristone

    The US Supreme Court is likely to keep a medicine that is used in most abortions available, in the court ’s first abortion case since conservative justices overturned Roev. Wade two years in the past.

    During about 90 minutes of talking, most people agreed that the people against abortion who sued the FDA over the approval of mifepristone and making it easier to get it, don’t have the right to sue.

    This decision means the current rules will stay the same. Patients can still get the drug in the mail without seeing a doctor in person. They can also use the medication to have an abortion up to 10 weeks into their pregnancy. If the court decides not to take a stance, it would avoid the parts of the case that could cause controversy.

    The high court is looking at abortion again after making a big decision in 2022 that caused many Republican-led states to make strict rules against abortion.

    Lawyer Elizabeth Prelogar, who represents the Biden administration in the Supreme Court, said that the court should throw out the case and make it clear that doctors and organizations who are against abortion don’t have the right to bring this case.

    Three judges who were in the group that wanted to overturn Roe asked tough questions to the lawyer for the people who want to ban abortion. Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh were chosen by former president Donald Trump to be Supreme Court judges.

    Barrett didn’t think the two doctors mentioned by lawyer Erin Hawley could prove they were harmed by the FDA’s actions, which is needed to show standing.

    “I believe the problem is that these affidavits seem to show that the objection is only to taking part in the abortion and ending the life of the embryo or fetus. ” “And I also don’t have any record of them being involved in that,” Barrett said.

    Kavanaugh only asked one question during the whole meeting, and it was about the technical issue of standing. He wanted Prelogar to confirm that doctors can’t be made to do abortions if it goes against their beliefs.

    Those against abortion want the judges to approve a decision from a conservative court that would make it harder to get mifepristone, a drug used in medication abortions.

    That decision had a quick impact on politics, and the result in the upcoming case, which is expected by early summer, could change the outcome of elections for Congress and the White House.

    Another abortion case is already scheduled to be heard in court. Next month, the judges will listen to arguments about whether a law requiring hospitals to provide emergency treatment should also include abortions, even in states where they are banned.

    On Tuesday morning, there were a lot of people outside the Supreme Court. Some were on the streets around the court, and there were also groups marching and shouting about the issue. The police stopped cars from going near the court.

    If the court rules against abortion, it could stop mifepristone from being sent through the mail or sold at big pharmacies. It could also stop telehealth visits where the drug is prescribed.

    The US President Joe Biden’s team and drug makers are saying that this could also make it harder for the FDA to approve drugs because judges might start questioning the agency’s decisions. The Democratic government and Danco Laboratories in New York say that the drug mifepristone is one of the safest drugs approved by the FDA.

    Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was chosen by President Biden and started working in the court right after the last abortion case, showed that she agreed with some of those points when she questioned Jessica Ellsworth, who is Danco’s lawyer. “Whether she’s worried about judges analyzing medical and scientific research. ”

    Abortion opponents say the FDA made bad choices in 2016 and 2021 by making it easier to get the abortion pill, which could harm women’s health. They are asking the court to support a decision that would bring back important protections for women using abortion drugs. Senator Hawley’s wife is representing the clients in this legal case. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, and one of their kids were in the courtroom to see her make her first arguments.

    The mifepristone case started five months after the Supreme Court changed the decision on Roe v. Those who are against abortion won a big decision almost a year ago from US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who was chosen by Trump in Texas. The decision would have taken away the approval for the drug completely. The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. However, it would undo modifications that officials made in 2016 and 2021 to make it easier to give the drug.

    The Supreme Court stopped the appeals court’s changed decision, and decided to consider the case. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas wanted to allow some restrictions while the case continued.

    During a legal discussion, Alito and Thomas asked only a few questions about the case, such as sending mifepristone through mail.

    They talked about the Comstock Act, an old law that is rarely used and is 151 years old. People who are against abortion are using this law to try to stop mifepristone from being delivered in the U.S Letter Thomas told Ellsworth that the law is wide and includes drugs like yours.

    Some people who support abortion rights are worried that the court’s decision may not do anything about the Comstock Act.

  • Case against approval of Akufo-Addo’s appointees to be heard Supreme Court today

    The confirmation of newly nominated ministers and reshuffled ministers appointed by President Akufo-Addo is uncertain as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on an injunction filed by Member of Parliament for South Dayi, Rockson Nelson Dafeamekpor.

    Dafeamekpor’s lawsuit against the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney General argues that the President should have sought parliamentary approval before reassigning ministers whose appointments were revoked.

    President Akufo-Addo announced a reshuffle on February 14, 2024, which saw 13 ministers and 10 deputy ministers relieved of their posts, while 6 were reassigned to various portfolios.

    The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case on Wednesday, March 27.

    Listed below are the reliefs sought by the Member of Parliament for South Dayi:

    “a declaration that under Article 78(1) of the 1992 Constitution, a Minister of State shall be appointed by the President with the prior approval of Parliament” and second, “a declaration that under Article 81(a) of the 1992 Constitution, the office of a Minister of State or a Deputy Minister shall become vacant if his appointment is revoked, terminated or relieved of that portfolio by the President.

    “a declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Articles 78(1) and 81 (a) of the 1992 Constitution, a Minister of State or Deputy Minister of State who has had his appointment revoked, terminated or relieved of portfolio by the President, cannot be re-assigned to another Ministerial or Deputy Ministerial office without prior approval of Parliament”.

    “a declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Articles 78(1) and 81 (a) of the 1992 Constitution, once a Minister of State or Deputy Minister of State has had his appointment revoked, terminated or relieved of that portfolio by the President, that Minister of State or Deputy Minister of State must be subject to the requirement of prior Parliamentary approval before that Minister of State or Deputy Minister of State is re-appointed as a Minister or Deputy-Minister of State.

    “a declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Articles 78(1) and 81(a) of the 1992 Constitution, the Ministers of State and the Deputy Minister of State whose appointments were revoked on the 14th of February, 2024 cannot be re-assigned or re-appointed to other Ministerial and Deputy Ministerial offices without prior approval of Parliament.”

    “a declaration that failure and/or refusal of the President of the Republic of Ghana to seek the prior approval of Parliament before purporting to re-assign the Ministers of State and the Deputy Minister of State whose appointments were revoked or terminated or relieved of their portfolios on the 14th of February, 2024 amounts to a direct violation of Articles 78(1) and 81(a) of the 1992 Constitution.”

    “a declaration that any Ministerial appointment which has not been subject to prior Parliamentary approval is in direct violation of Article 78(1) of the 1992 Constitution.”

    “an order directing the President of the Republic of Ghana to submit to Parliament for prior approval, the names of the Ministers of State and the Deputy Minister of State whose appointments were revoked or terminated on the 14th of February, 2024 and who were subsequently supposedly re-assigned to other Ministerial and Deputy Ministerial offices for purposes of appointment as Ministers of State and Deputy Minister of State.”

    “an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Speaker of Parliament, the 1st Defendant herein, from proceeding with the vetting and approval of the names of the nominees of the President submitted to Parliament until the requirement that a Minister of State shall be appointed by the President with the prior approval of Parliament is satisfied in respect to the Ministers of State and the Deputy Minister of State whose appointments were revoked on the 14th of February, 2024 have been re-assigned new Ministerial and Deputy Ministerial offices.”

    “an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Speaker of Parliament 1st Defendant herein, from proceeding with the vetting and approval of the names of the nominees of the Presidential submitted to Parliament until the requirement that a Minister of State shall be appointed by the President with the prior approval of Parliament is satisfied in respect to the Ministers of State and the Deputy Minister of State whose appointments were revoked on the 14th of February, 2024 and have been re-assigned new Ministerial and Deputy Ministerial offices.”

  • Supreme Court denies Justice Baah was biased towards Anas

    Supreme Court denies Justice Baah was biased towards Anas

    The Supreme Court has stated that it dismissed an application by investigator Anas Aremeyaw Anas because his claim that a High Court judge was biased towards him lacked legal support.

    Anas had filed a certiorari application at the apex court seeking to nullify a High Court’s decision that dismissed his defamation suit against Member of Parliament for Assin Central, Kennedy Ohene Agyapong.

    The defamation suit was based on public statements made and a broadcast by the MP, accusing Anas of being evil and blackmailing people in the name of investigative journalism.

    Anas’ grounds for the certiorari application challenging the judgment were that the trial judge, Justice Eric Baah, a Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting as a High Court judge, had no jurisdiction to hear the suit and that the judge was biased towards him.

    On February 25 this year, the Supreme Court, in a 3-2 majority decision, dismissed the application and reserved the full reasoning in the judgment, which was later filed at the court’s registry, making it public.

    Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, Justices Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, and Samuel Asiedu were on the majority side, while Justices Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu and Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi dissented.

    In the High Court judgment dated March 15 last year, Justice Baah held that although the words spoken by Mr. Agyapong against Anas were capable of defamation, they were factual and therefore could not be considered defamatory as the defence of justification exonerated the MP.

    Justice Baah then made certain findings based on his analysis of the evidence before him and held that the MP was justified in calling Anas “evil, blackmailer, an extortionist, criminal, and corrupt.”

    Furthermore, the judge described Anas’s work as “investigative terrorism” and not “investigative journalism.”

    “It should be understood that as officers caught by plaintiff in his investigations have lost their jobs, an entrapped President may be compelled to resign out of shame or public pressure.”

    “That means the plaintiff, through his investigative antics can cause the removal of a President, and thereby the mandate given to him at the election. This is not investigative journalism.

    “It is investigative terrorism. It is an exercise of indirect political power under the cloak of journalism,” Justice Baah held in the judgment.

    The above statement by Justice Baah was one of the statements in the judgment, Anas relied on to support his assertion that the judge had a real likelihood of bias towards him.

    In its decision, the Supreme Court, as authored by Justice Asiedu, dismissed the ground of bias. The court held that Justice Baah’s strong words did not indicate bias or a dislike towards Anas. Instead, the statement was deemed an analysis of the evidence presented in the trial court, which is a judge’s duty when adjudicating a matter.

    The court noted that Justice Baah’s statement was not made in isolation, as there was video evidence before the trial court. This evidence allegedly showed Anas, along with one Amakye and a Sheikh, plotting to entrap the Prime Minister of Ivory Coast and the President of Ghana.

    “Is the applicant (Anas) saying that a trial judge has no right to examine and analyse the evidence placed before him and draw inferences and make findings of fact?

    “In my opinion, the statements referred to are the inferences and findings of facts which the learned trial judge dutifully made and for that matter they cannot reasonably be described as constituting bias and be clothed with the garb of prejudice against the applicant,” the apex court held.

    In a concurring opinion supporting the majority decision, the Chief Justice stated that Justice Baah’s statements were his findings and inferences based on his evaluation of the evidence presented to him.

    The Chief Justice further explained that whether or not Justice Baah’s evaluation of the evidence was erroneous would require a re-evaluation of the evidence, which was not possible in the current judicial review application brought by Anas. Such a re-evaluation, the Chief Justice noted, should be done on appeal.

    “My conclusion is that the issue of the sustainability of the judge’s words used to describe the applicant can only be a matter determinable by the appellate court.

    It is not the place of this court to question the basis for any findings and conclusions that have been reached by a trial judge when the court does not have the full records of proceedings,” Justice Torkornoo held.

    In his dissenting opinion, Justice Kulendi argued that Justice Baah’s words indicated a clear prejudice against Anas. He questioned why the court, which was hearing a civil matter of defamation, ended up making criminal findings against Anas.

    “I find it even more perplexing that a court exercising civil jurisdiction would find that the applicant is guilty of having taken bribes, and being dishonest, fraudulent, a cheat, an extortionist, a thief, a blackmailer and corrupt,” Justice Kulendi held.

    Justice Amadu disagreed with the majority’s view that Anas’s remedy was an appeal rather than a judicial review application. He argued that this interpretation would diminish the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as prescribed by the Constitution.

  • Anti-gay bill: Akufo-Addo is exhibiting signs of Napoleonic syndrome – Prof. Ayensu-Danquah

    Anti-gay bill: Akufo-Addo is exhibiting signs of Napoleonic syndrome – Prof. Ayensu-Danquah

    The National Democratic Congress (NDC) parliamentary candidate for the Essikado-Ketan constituency in the Western Region, Professor Grace Ayensu-Danquah, has criticized President Akufo-Addo’s delay in accepting and assenting to the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill 2024 (anti-gay bill).

    The bill was unanimously passed by Parliament on Wednesday, February 28, but President Akufo-Addo has not yet assented to it for it to become law.

    Speaking on TV3 New Day on Thursday, March 21, Prof. Ayensu-Danquah accused the President of being contentious and overly assertive. She likened his behavior to what she termed as the Napoleonic syndrome, suggesting that he consistently seeks to assert dominance and be the center of attention.

    She emphasized that the President, like any other individual, is not above the legislature and should accept and assent to the anti-gay bill as required.

    In a letter dated March 18, President Akufo-Addo requested Parliament to halt the transmission of the bill to the presidency for assent, citing pending applications for an interlocutory injunction filed at the Supreme Court.

    In response, Speaker Alban Bagbin expressed strong dissatisfaction with the President’s refusal to assent to the bill, stating that it was contemptuous.

    Bagbin announced the suspension of vetting and approval of the President’s ministerial nominees pending a Supreme Court ruling against the vetting exercise, following an interlocutory injunction filed at the Supreme Court by an MP.

  • You can’t communicate with parliament like the Executive’s subsidiary – Dafeamekpor to Presidency

    You can’t communicate with parliament like the Executive’s subsidiary – Dafeamekpor to Presidency

    Member of Parliament for South Dayi, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, argues that the President’s Secretary, Nana Bediatuo Asante, shouldn’t view Parliament as just another part of the Executive branch.

    He believes that Parliament and the Executive have equal power in government, with neither being subordinate to the other.

    Dafeamekpor, speaking on JoyNews, criticized a press release from the President’s office. It requested Parliament not to send the anti-LGBTQ+ bill to the President until the Supreme Court resolved an ongoing matter. He felt this request was disrespectful.

    “So, when you are conducting yourself in relation to another organ of state, you must conduct yourself within the protocols and the ethics of those offices. You do not communicate with parliament as though we are subsidiary to the Executive. The Clerk to Parliament is akin to the Chief of Staff of the Presidency; he is akin to the Judicial Secretary who occupies an office and operates under the office, operates and serves the Judicial Counsel, and serves the Chief Justice,” he said on the AM Show on March 20, 2024.

    Mr. Dafeamekpor pointed out that in writing the press release, Bediatuo Asante, the Secretary to the President, was addressing his superiors, suggesting that his language and tone should have been more respectful.

    He noted that Bediatuo held the position of secretary to the President when the minority in Parliament questioned the constitutionality of the e-levy law. During that case, the presidency invoked the “presumption of the function of the President” argument.

    Mr. Dafeamekpor argued that the same “presumption of the function of the President” applies to the current LGBTQ case.

    “If you look at the stipulation in Article 1068 of the Constitution in respect of this matter, there are clear timelines to be followed when this happens. When the bill goes through the mill and is passed into law and remitted to the office of the president, the president cannot say that he would not receive the bill.

    “He must receive the bill and take steps. What steps are available to him? Within seven days, you must inform parliament that instead of giving parliament an immediate accent to the bill, ‘I have referred it to the Council of the State for advice, and in that referral to the Council of the State, the president is to indicate to the Council of the State the portion of the law or part of the law that he thinks they must pay attention to and advise him.

    “He has to give that indication; if he is not making a referral to the Council of the State and wants to veto it properly, he must, within 14 days of exercising that veto, inform parliament regarding a portion of the bill proposing amendments to them and justifying the amendment.”

  • US Supreme Court permits Texas to implement immigration law

    US Supreme Court permits Texas to implement immigration law

    The Supreme Court in America has paved way for Texas to start using a tough immigration law right away. It lets state officials arrest and hold people they think entered the country illegally.

    The three liberal judges on the court disagreed.

    Legal problems with the law are still being worked out in a higher court, but for now Texas has won a big victory in its fight against the Biden administration’s immigration policy.

    The court had stopped the law from starting, but on Tuesday it allowed the law to move forward.

    The Senate Bill 4 was signed into law by the Republican Governor. In December, Greg Abbott made it a state crime to enter Texas illegally and allows state judges to order immigrants to be sent back to their home countries. The government is mainly in charge of making sure that immigration laws are followed.

    The new law makes immigration advocates worry that more Latinos in Texas will be unfairly targeted and could be held in detention or deported by the state.

    A judge in Austin stopped the state from following the law. The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals stopped the lower court’s decision for a short time and said the law would start on March 10 if the Supreme Court didn’t do anything. The Biden administration and others quickly made urgent requests for help.

    Abbott said the court’s decision is good, but the case will still go to a higher court for review.

    Karine Jean-Pierre, who speaks for the White House, said on Tuesday that “we strongly disagree” with the decision.

    Please simplify this text. “SB” She said that the law will not only make Texas communities less safe, but it will also make things harder for the police and cause problems at the southern border. “SB 4 shows how Republican leaders are using the border issue for their own political gain and not focusing on real solutions. ”

    The court did not give a reason for its decision.

    As usual in emergency situations, the Supreme Court did not give reasons for its decision.

    However, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that the appeals court had only made a temporary “administrative” order. Barrett wanted to stop the Supreme Court from looking at these orders.

    “To my knowledge, this court has never looked at a court of appeals’ decision to put a temporary hold on a case from a government agency. “I would not start a business. “When put in place, an administrative stay is meant to be a temporary pause before a decision is made about the request to delay the appeal. ”

    Barrett said she thought it was not a good idea to bring a dispute to this court about whether a lower court made a mistake at an early stage.

    Sonia Sotomayor, a judge, disagreed with the decision and said it will cause more problems with enforcing immigration laws.

    Sotomayor wrote that the law changes the balance of power between the federal and state governments. For over 100 years, the national government has been in charge of allowing noncitizens into the country and making them leave.

    “Texas can immediately start punishing many people from other countries and sending them back to Mexico,” Sotomayor wrote. “This law will create problems with other countries, make it harder to help people escaping danger, make it difficult for federal enforcement to work, make it harder for federal agencies to find and watch for security threats, and make noncitizens afraid to report abuse or trafficking. ”

    Justice Elena Kagan said in her short disagreement that her thoughts on the case are just the beginning.

    The judge said that the government handles immigration, and deciding who can come into the country and who has to leave, is its job.

    The court in New Orleans will listen to arguments in the case on April 3.

    It’s possible that the case will be heard again by the top court.

    Barrett and Kavanaugh, who are important judges on the high court, said that the judges should not interfere with appeals courts when they use short delays to review documents.

    Barrett said that if the 5th Circuit doesn’t make a decision soon, the Biden administration and the other people involved in the case might go back to the Supreme Court.

    “The court might have to decide that a temporary stop has turned into a longer stop and act accordingly,” she wrote. “At this point in the case, it’s too early to make that decision. ”

    Tami Goodlette, a lawyer for some of the people fighting against the law, said the court’s decision is “unfortunate” and puts people’s lives in danger for no reason.

    “We are dedicated to continuing the fight to get rid of SB 4 for good, to prove that no state can take over federal immigration authority,” she said.

    There has been a decrease in the number of migrants crossing the border following a surge in December.

    Homeland Security officials told the media that not a lot of migrants are crossing the US-Mexico border right now, after a lot of people crossed in December.

    On Monday, the US Border Patrol caught about 4,300 migrants at the southern border, according to a department official. The number of people coming to the border each day has decreased. In December, there were a lot of people coming but now there are fewer.

    Migrant arrests fell by half in January compared to December, as reported by US Customs and Border Protection. In January, border officials met over 176,200 people at the US southern border, which is less than December when almost 302,000 people crossed. The CBP has not yet shared the total numbers for February.

    Homeland Security officials say less people are crossing the border because the US and Mexico are talking and being stricter with the rules. But they also warn that the number of people trying to cross could go up again because there are a lot of people moving to the Western Hemisphere.

    Argument about a law that many people disagree with.

    The Biden government, two groups that support immigrants, and El Paso County are fighting against the law.

    Lawyers for the government asked the high court to consider that the new law would seriously change the way the US and states have handled immigration for a long time.

    “People may have different opinions about immigration. ” They always do. And legal representatives for the immigration groups and El Paso County expressed worry about recent immigration issues in Texas. “But California in the 1870s, Pennsylvania and Michigan in the 1930s, and Arizona in 2012 had the same thing happen. ” However, for 150 years, this Court has said that states cannot control who can enter and leave the country.

    Texas Lawyer Ken Paxton, a member of the Republican party, and other state leaders told the Supreme Court that the Constitution allows Texas to protect itself from dangerous criminal groups that bring illegal drugs, weapons, and violence into the state.

    Officials said that Texas is the first line of defense against violence coming from other countries. They also said that the state has to handle the deadly results of the federal government not being able or willing to protect the border.

  • Supreme Court delivers 3-2 verdict against Anas Aremeyaw Anas

    Supreme Court delivers 3-2 verdict against Anas Aremeyaw Anas

    The complete certified true copy of a judgment rendered by a five-member panel of the Supreme Court, presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, has been issued.

    Despite announcing a 3-2 majority decision against investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas‘ certiorari application challenging a damning 2023 High Court ruling, the court had delayed its full ruling.

    The apex court, through its ruling, dismissed Anas’s application to reverse a lower court’s decision that dismissed his defamation lawsuit against Assin Central Member of Parliament, Kennedy Agyapong.

    Previously, the High Court ruled in favor of Mr Agyapong, characterizing Anas’ journalistic approach as “investigative terrorism” rather than legitimate journalism.

    Following this decision, Anas sought to contest the High Court’s ruling at the Supreme Court, expressing concerns regarding the judge’s jurisdiction and potential biases.

    Justices Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu and Samuel Asiedu concurred with the Chief Justice in rejecting Anas’ appeal, whereas Justices Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu and Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi dissented.

    The verdict represents a significant milestone in the legal dispute between Anas and Assin Central Member of Parliament, Kennedy Agyapong, which commenced in 2018.

    Full verdict below:

    THE-REPUBLIC-VRS-THE-HIGH-COURT-ACCRA-EXPARTE-ANAS-AREMEYAW-ANASDownload
  • Akufo-Addo cannot assent to anti-gay bill until Supreme Court says so – Presidency to Akufo-Addo

    Akufo-Addo cannot assent to anti-gay bill until Supreme Court says so – Presidency to Akufo-Addo

    The Office of the President has made a formal request to Parliament, urging them to refrain from forwarding the anti-gay bill to President Akufo-Addo for his approval.

    The Secretary to the President, Nana Bediatuo Asante, revealed that this decision was prompted by the existence of two pending applications for an order of interlocutory injunction before the Supreme Court.

    These applications aim to halt Parliament from sending the Bill to the President and to prevent the President from giving his assent to the Bill until the final determination of the matter.

    In a statement issued on Monday and signed by Nana Bediatuo, the Office disclosed that the Attorney-General had officially notified the President, via a letter dated March 18, 2024, confirming receipt of both applications.Furthermore, the Attorney-General advised the President against taking any action regarding the Bill until the Supreme Court resolves the issues raised by the lawsuits.

    The statement emphasized that both applications had been duly served on Parliament as well.

    Therefore, it would be inappropriate to transmit the Bill to the President and equally improper for the Office of the President to receive the Bill until the Supreme Court reaches a verdict on the suits.

    Additionally, the Office highlighted the established legal principle that during the pendency of an interlocutory injunction application, the status quo ante should be upheld, and no actions should be taken that might prejudice the sought-after injunctive relief or undermine the authority of the court.

    Consequently, Parliament was kindly urged to refrain from transmitting the Bill to the President until the matters before the Supreme Court are resolved.

    “It is the understanding of this Office that both applications have also been duly served on Parliament. Therefore, it would be improper for you to transmit the Bill to the President and equally improper for this Office to receive the Bill until the Supreme Court determines the matters raised in the suits,” it added.

    “In the circumstances, you are kindly requested to cease and desist from transmitting the Bill to the President until the matters before the Supreme Court are resolved,” it added.

  • Richard Sky calls on Supreme Court to declare Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill null and void

    Richard Sky calls on Supreme Court to declare Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill null and void

    Private legal practitioner, Richard Dela Sky, has lodged an application with the Supreme Court, seeking a declaration that the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, commonly referred to as the anti-gay bill, is null, void, and without legal effect.

    Sky argues that the enactment of the bill contravenes Article 33(5) of the 1992 Constitution, as well as various provisions including Articles 12(1) and (2), 15(1), 17(1) and (2), 18(2), and 21(1)(a)(b)(d) and (e) of the Constitution.

    He asserts that the bill’s provisions “raise profound concerns regarding the potential infringement of the fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteed to every Ghanaian by the Constitution.”

    Additionally, Richard Sky claims that “the Speaker of Parliament contravened Article 108(a)(ii) of the Constitution, in light of Article 296(a)(b) and (c), by admitting and allowing Parliament to proceed upon and pass “The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024″ into law as the same imposes a charge upon the Consolidated Fund or other public funds of Ghana.”

    The bill was approved by Parliament on Wednesday, February 28, 2024, and it forbids funding, advocacy, and promotion of LGBTQ activities.

    Sky, in its writ, also wants the Supreme Court to give an “order restraining the President of the Republic from assenting to ‘The Human and Sexual Values Bill, 2024,’ as such action will directly contravene the constitutional safeguards of liberties and rights of Ghanaians.”

    He further prayed for “an injunction barring any attempts to enforce the provisions of “The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill 2024,” particularly those criminalising same-sex relationships and related advocacy efforts.”

  • Journalist drags Parliament to Supreme Court over Anti-LGBTQ+ bill

    Journalist drags Parliament to Supreme Court over Anti-LGBTQ+ bill

    Journalist Richard Dela Sky has taken Parliament to the Supreme Court over the passage of the Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill also known as the anti-LGBTQ bill.

    This controversial legislation was passed unanimously by lawmakers on February 28, 2024, after years of deliberation.

    There is mounting pressure on President Akufo-Addo from Members of Parliament to sign the bill into law. However, the President has stated that he will withhold his assent until the court issues a ruling on the case.

    Under the bill, individuals promoting or sponsoring LGBTQ activities could face three to five years in jail, while those caught engaging in such acts could be sentenced to a minimum of 6 months and a maximum of 3 years.

    The reliefs sought by the journalist include an order restraining President Akufo-Addo from assenting to the bill and also preventing the “Speaker of Parliament and the Clerk to Parliament from presenting ‘The Human and Sexual Values Bill, 2024’ to the President of the Republic for his assent.”

    The plaintiff in the lawsuit against the Anti-LGBTQ+ bill argues that certain portions of the legislation are in conflict with the principles of the 1992 Constitution, and thus should be declared null and void.

    The lawsuit, filed on March 5, 2024, also contends that certain sections of the bill impose a financial burden on the Consolidated Fund or other public funds of Ghana.

    On the other hand, the bill’s proponents, including Member of Parliament for Ningo-Prampram, Sam George, maintain that no part of the bill violates the provisions of the 1992 constitution. Speaking to the media on March 2, Sam George noted that critics of the bill who claim it contradicts the constitution have not specified the exact sections they believe are problematic.

    “This is a social issue and so Parliament is within the same Article 17.4 exercising its right that the constitution has conferred on us to deal with the social issue. It says for the matters relating to adoption, which is in this bill, marriage is in this bill, divorce, burial, and the evolution of property. But clearly, parliament has not acted ultra vires the constitution,” he said.

    The Finance Ministry is expressing concerns about the potential implications if President Akufo-Addo decides to assent to the recently passed bill.

    The Ministry outlined the negative implications of the document on its expenditure, key government plans, and projects. It urged President Akufo-Addo to hold off on signing the bill into law as it may cost the country greatly. These risks include a potential loss of $850 million in budgetary support from the World Bank this year alone.

    In the 5-page document, the Ministry explained that “for 2024 Ghana will lose US$600 million Budget support and US$250 million for the Financial Stability Fund.”

    “This will negatively impact Ghana’s foreign exchange reserves and exchange rate stability as these inflows are expected to shore the country’s reserve position.

    Over the next six years, the Ministry explained that “Ghana is likely to lose US$3.8 billion in World Bank Financing.”

    Some Members of Parliament are furious over the Finance Ministry’s advice to President Akufo-Addo. For instance, MP for Sagnarigu, Alhassan Bashir Alhassan Fuseini, has urged Ghanaians to take action in support of the anti-LGBTQ+ bill. The MP stated that the proposed legislation is crucial to upholding the country’s cultural values and independence from external influence.

  • Ghana’s Constitution should guide Akufo-Addo on assenting anti-LGBTQI bill – Egyapa Mercer

    Ghana’s Constitution should guide Akufo-Addo on assenting anti-LGBTQI bill – Egyapa Mercer


    The nominee for the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, and Culture, Andrew Egyapa Mercer, has expressed his expectation that President Akufo-Addo would adhere to the constitution and make a decision in accordance with the law concerning the anti-LGBTQI bill.

    During his vetting by the Appointments Committee of Parliament on Tuesday, March 5, he acknowledged the potential impact on Ghana’s appeal to certain groups but emphasized the dual nature of the consequences.

    Egyapa Mercer stated,”Yes, it’s likely that it may impact Ghana’s attractiveness to some segments of people who feel strongly about the law and its passage.It may also inure to our benefits as well for people who feel strongly that the passage of the law is right. So, it cuts both ways, there will be some wins and losses. And that will be my position on the passage of the law.”

    When prompted about the advice he would offer the president, he emphasized a balanced consideration, stating, “I will tell the president to weigh both sides. Obviously, the president is operating within certain social construct of the constitution, and I will expect him to follow the constitution and arrive at a decision the law enjoins him to arrive.”

    Parliament passed the Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill, also known as the anti-gay Bill, on February 28. President Akufo-Addo subsequently urged stakeholders to await the Supreme Court‘s ruling on a constitutional challenge filed by a concerned citizen before taking further action.

    The President emphasized the importance of holding off on any action until the court’s decision in a statement posted on Facebook by the Director of Communication at the presidency, Eugene Arhin, on March 4.

  • US Supreme Court to render decision in a case involving removal of Trump from ballot in 2024

    US Supreme Court to render decision in a case involving removal of Trump from ballot in 2024

    The Supreme Court is expected to announce its decision on Monday regarding the case of the former U.S President Donald Trump may be removed from the list of candidates because he is trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

    Trump is trying to change a very important decision made by the Colorado Supreme Court. They said he can’t run for president again and can’t be on the ballot for the state’s primary election on Tuesday.

    The case will be decided on Monday, the day before Super Tuesday in 16 states. This will clear up any doubts about whether votes for Trump, the top Republican candidate for president, will be counted. Both sides asked the court to work quickly. The court heard arguments less than a month ago, on Feb. The last sentence is up to you to rewrite as you desire because it was not provided.

    The Colorado court was the first to use a law from after the Civil War that stops people who were part of the rebellion from holding government positions. Trump can’t be on the primary ballot in Illinois and Maine. But the decisions for both states, as well as Colorado, are waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision.

    The Supreme Court has never made a decision about Section 3 of the 14th amendment before.

    The court said on Sunday that at least one case will be decided on Monday, but they didn’t say which one. However, the court did not follow its normal way of doing things, which makes it seem likely that the decision on the Trump ballot case will be announced soon.

    Usually, the court makes decisions on the days when the judges are supposed to work, except for when it’s almost the end of June. But the next time we have to go to court is on March 15th. Except for when the court was closed due to the coronavirus, the judges usually read summaries of their opinions in the courtroom. They will not be there on Monday.

    All opinions will be posted on the court’s website after 10 a.m Monday at Eastern Standard Time.

    The judges decided last week that they will listen to arguments about whether Trump can be charged with a crime for interfering in the election, including his actions in January. Attack on the United States on January 6, 2021. Capitol building. The court has decided to get involved in a controversial case that doesn’t have much of a past to show what to do. This makes people wonder if Trump will go to trial before the November election.

    The ex-president is accused of breaking the law 91 times in four legal cases. Out of all the cases, the only one that is likely to go to trial is his state case in New York. He is charged with lying about his business records when he paid hush money to a porn actor. The trial for that case is scheduled for March 25, and the judge has shown that he is determined to continue with it.

  • UN Supreme Court to hear major case pertaining to Israel’s occupation in Palestinian Territories

    UN Supreme Court to hear major case pertaining to Israel’s occupation in Palestinian Territories

    The International Court of Justice, which is a part of the UN, is to listen to the last reasons in a case that questions Israel’s 56-year control of the West Bank and Gaza.

    This week’s hearings will focus on the legal impact of Israel’s control over the Palestinian territories.

    Renowned lawyer Philippe Sands told the BBC that this issue is very important and the solution is crucial. Even though it may not be as dramatic as other Court cases, it is still very significant.

    This situation started because of a decision made by the United Nations in December 2022, before the attacks by Hamas on October 7th last year, and Israel’s military reaction in the Gaza Strip.

    What have people said in favor of their opinions.

    Last week, the Palestinian Authority’s foreign minister accused Israel of being like a colonial power that treats Palestinians unfairly.

    He used a lot of maps to show how the land in Palestine is getting smaller and smaller.

    Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of Israel, showed a picture at the UNGA in September. In the picture, he held up a map of the Middle East without any Palestinian territory. He called it the “new” Middle East.

    Mr al-Maliki said there is no Palestine on the map, only Israel. It includes all the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

    “This shows that the long-lasting Israeli control of Palestine aims to make Palestine disappear and destroy the Palestinian people. ”

    Paul S Reichler, a lawyer who works internationally, told the ICJ that permanent occupation doesn’t make sense according to the law. “If a job keeps going on and on, it becomes like adding on extra territory,” he said.

    Philippe Sands, who worked for the PA’s legal team, said to the judges: “The right for people to decide their own future. UN member states must make Israel stop occupying immediately.

    “No help, no support, no involvement, no help with using force, no money, no weapons, no trade. ” I don’t know anything.

    Many countries said that Israel’s occupation was violating the Palestinian people’s right to decide things for themselves. They talked about this for 30 minutes.

    Israel said no to being in the meetings. They gave a written statement instead. They said the meetings would make it harder to fix the problem. They didn’t like the questions from the UN.

    However, Israel’s best friends did take part.

    The US told the ICJ that pulling out without security promises would hurt talks for peace. It requested the judges to make sure that their decision would support, not harm, the possibility of a two-state solution.

    The UK asked a group of judges not to give their opinion because Israel did not agree to it.

    This might have something to do with another case at the ICJ. Mauritius is suing the UK over the Chagos Islands, and the UK made the same argument and lost.

    Many countries said the Hamas attacks, which killed about 1,200 people and took over 250 hostages in Gaza, showed that Israel needs to be safe. They said if Israeli forces leave, there must be guarantees for safety.

    Why is this important.

    If the ICJ gives an opinion that is not a law, it goes to the UN General Assembly, and they make a decision. That would be important and could start talks and create the rules for a future agreement.

    If the court says Israel’s control of the land is against the law, it will tell the UN and other countries not to help or support the current situation.

    This decision could have a big impact on trade and on Israel’s position. Countries such as the US might struggle to keep helping Israel.

    The UNGA’s current case is the first time since the 1940s that the highest UN court will be able to address all of these issues.

    In recent weeks, some ICJ presentations have become really popular on TikTok. It shows that even legal arguments, which usually seem far away and not relevant, are connecting with people outside of the ICJ’s Great Hall of Justice.

    At the same time, Human Rights Watch says that Israel is not following a court order to allow food and supplies into Gaza. This is putting 2. 3 million Palestinians in danger of not having enough food.

    Israeli officials said that they have given a response to the ICJ about the court’s request on January 26th. The court wanted Israel to report on the actions they are taking to stop genocide in Gaza.

    The Israeli government hasn’t said what they will do in response yet.

  • Anas’ defamation suit against Ken Agyapong dismissed by Supreme Court

    Anas’ defamation suit against Ken Agyapong dismissed by Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court has denied Anas Aremeyaw Anas’ certiorari application against Member of Parliament (MP) for Assin Central, Kennedy Ohene Agyapong.

    The five-member panel, led by Her Ladyship Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, upheld the High Court’s previous ruling in a majority decision.

    Six years ago, a defamation lawsuit of GH¢25 million brought by Anas Aremeyaw Anas against Kennedy Agyapong was dismissed by the Accra High Court, which also imposed a cost of GH¢50,000 on the journalist.

    The legal dispute arose from Anas’ claim that the lawmaker had defamed him, leading to legal proceedings initiated in 2018.

    On Wednesday, February 28, the Supreme Court, in a majority decision, dismissed the case. Despite Kennedy Agyapong’s lawyer requesting costs to be awarded against Anas, the Supreme Court declined to do so.

  • Case seeking to clear homeless children from street dismissed

    Case seeking to clear homeless children from street dismissed

    Child Rights International’s case against the state, which sought, among other things, the government to clear children from the streets and provide them with education as mandated by the 1992 Constitution, has been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

    The seven-member panel, led by Her Ladyship Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, ruled that the case was dismissed primarily because the plaintiff’s lawyers failed to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, rendering their appearance deficient despite the validity of their case.

    Director of Child Rights International, Bright Appiah, expressed disappointment with the outcome but mentioned plans to analyze the final ruling and develop a strategy for reinitiating the case.

    Despite the costs involved in pursuing the right course of action, he remains undeterred by the ruling.

    Mr Appiah emphasized that the lawyers would thoroughly examine the case, and if necessary, they would return to court.

    He highlighted that the Bench acknowledged the case’s genuineness but pointed out the procedural error in presenting it, and they would determine the next steps after the legal analysis.

    “The lawyers will study the case and if there is a need to come back, we will do so. You heard from the Bench that it is a genuine case, just that we couldn’t come properly before them and so we will study the case and come back. When the lawyers are done studying it, we will see the way forward.”

  • “Anas is a blackmailer” ruling endorsed by Supreme Court

    “Anas is a blackmailer” ruling endorsed by Supreme Court

    In a recent ruling on March 15, Justice Eric Baah, a Court of Appeal judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court Judge, described investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas as “a blackmailer who uses blackmail to extort money from his opponents and people he does not like.”

    This statement was made in the context of dismissing a defamation suit filed by Anas against Member of Parliament for Assin Central, Mr. Kennedy Ohene Agyapong, citing a lack of merit in the case.

    At that time, the High Court dismissed a GHC25 million defamation lawsuit brought by Anas Aremeyaw Anas against Kennedy Agyapong and imposed a cost of GHC50,000 on the journalist.

    Anas had alleged that the lawmaker defamed him, leading to legal proceedings initiated in 2018. In a majority decision on Wednesday, February 28, the Supreme Court dismissed the case.

    Despite the request from Kennedy Agyapong’s lawyer for costs to be awarded against Anas, the Supreme Court declined to do so.

    Speaking about Anas’ work as an investigative journalist, the judge added that “What the plaintiff is doing is not investigative journalism but investigative terrorism”.

    “From the above, I hold that the plaintiff is a blackmailer who uses blackmail to extort money from his opponents and people he does not like.

    “What the plaintiff is doing is not investigative journalism but investigative terrorism,” the presiding judge, who awarded cost of GH¢50,000 against Anas said.

  • Reassigned ministers must undergo parliamentary scrutiny – Dafeamekpor

    Reassigned ministers must undergo parliamentary scrutiny – Dafeamekpor

    The Minority in Parliament has insisted that all reassigned ministers must undergo vetting and approval by the Appointment Committee of Parliament.

    Opposition lawmakers have served notice of their intention to challenge the reassignments of five ministers at the Supreme Court, emphasizing the need for parliamentary scrutiny and approval in accordance with the constitution.

    South Dayi Member of Parliament, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, argued that the president revoked the appointments of the ministers in question, necessitating parliamentary scrutiny for their reassignments.

    He stated, “We are demanding that those five ministers he has reassigned must be subjected to parliamentary vetting, and that is the procedure, so they cannot escape parliamentary scrutiny.”

    If their demand is not met, the Minority vows to proceed to the Supreme Court for legal interpretation.

    President Akufo-Addo recently conducted a much-anticipated ministerial reshuffle, making changes ten months before the end of his tenure.

    The reshuffle included the removal of some ministers, such as Ken Ofori-Atta, and the reassignment of others like Kojo Oppong Nkrumah and Francis Asenso Boakye to different portfolios.

    See below:



    The reshuffle details were conveyed in a press release dated February 14, signed by Eugene Arhin, the Director of Communication at the presidency. Arhin stated that the President expressed appreciation for the departing ministers’ commitment and hard work, wishing them well in their future endeavors.

  • Supreme Court of India eliminates anonymous election funding

    Supreme Court of India eliminates anonymous election funding

    India’s highest court has canceled a program that let people give money to political parties without revealing their identity. They said it goes against the constitution.

    Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government started electoral bonds in 2018 to make it clearer where political funding comes from.

    But some people say that it has actually made the process more confusing.

    Mr Modi’s BJP got a lot of money from bonds.

    The plan was questioned in the highest court because it was seen as a way of changing how democracy works.

    On Thursday, a group of five judges decided that electoral bonds go against the rights of citizens to get information from the government.

    The top judge in India, DY Chandrachud, said the Right to Information law is not just about government matters, but also includes information needed for people to be part of democracy.

    “Political parties are important in elections, and it’s essential to know where their money comes from when deciding who to vote for,” he said.

    The court told the government-owned bank, State Bank of India, to stop selling those bonds. They also have to give the names of the people who bought the bonds and tell the Election Commission which political parties cashed them in, all within a week.

    It was also noticed that electoral bonds were not the only way to stop the use of cash or “black money” and the government was asked to look at other options.

    “The court said that people need to make sure the government is doing the right things and being transparent. This can only happen if the government is open and not keeping secrets. ”

    The government said they made the policy to stop people from giving money to political parties in cash. They did this because many of India’s elections are paid for by private donations.

    These bonds are given out by the government in set amounts of money, and can be bought from a state-owned bank at certain times of the year. They don’t charge interest and have to be paid back within a certain time.

    People and businesses can donate money to political parties without telling anyone who they are.

    Only political parties that are officially recognized and got at least 1% of the votes in the last election can get the bonds. They have to use the bonds within 15 days.

    The people who like the plan say it makes it easy to see where the money for political parties comes from and keeps it clear, and also keeps the person who gives the money secret.

    Critics say that the bonds are not completely anonymous because the state-owned bank knows who gives the money and who receives it. This makes it easy for the government in power to see the details and use the information to influence donors.

    They also say that there is no public record of who bought each bond and who received the donation. This means taxpayers don’t know where the donations came from.

    In court, people said that this stops citizens from knowing about how political parties get their money and encourages dishonest behavior.

    The government said it was important to keep the names of donors secret, so they wouldn’t be punished by political parties. They also said the accusation was not true.

    Up until now, electoral bonds totaling 160 billion rupees ($1. 9 billion; £15 billion) have been sold in 29 batches.

    The BJP got 57% of the bonds, while the main opposition Congress party only got 10%.

  • Trump asks Supreme Court to postpone 2020 election dispute

    Trump asks Supreme Court to postpone 2020 election dispute

    Former President Donald Trump wants the Supreme Court to stop a lower court‘s decision that he can be charged with a crime even though he was president.

    He said that he couldn’t be accused of doing things that happened while he was president during his election interference case.

    Three judges from lower courts did not agree and decided that he can be charged with a crime just like any other person.

    However, Trump’s lawyers argued that he should not face trial while an election campaign is taking place.

    “Having a trial for President Trump during election time will make it hard for him to campaign against President Biden,” Trump’s lawyers said in the documents.

    The Supreme Court will decide if they will stop the ruling to let Mr.

    The highest court, which has more conservative judges, agreed to the request. This will likely cause a significant delay in the important criminal case. The case accuses Mr. Trump of trying to unlawfully change the 2020 election. It may not be resolved until after the November election.

    If the Supreme Court doesn’t stop the decision, a federal trial with Judge Tanya Chutkan will probably happen in the spring.

    Mr Trump is running for President, but he also has to go to court for three other cases.

    He is being accused of trying to change the results of the 2020 election in Georgia and mishandling classified documents in Florida after leaving the White House.

    The third case, based in New York, is about an alleged payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels that was hidden. He said he didn’t do anything wrong in all the cases.

    Mr Trump’s lawyers keep trying to postpone his trials so they happen after the 2024 election.

    Mr Trump is being accused of four things in the trial for interfering in the federal election: trying to cheat the US, trying to stop an official process, getting in the way of an official process, and plotting against the rights of citizens.

    He said he didn’t do anything wrong many times, and his lawyers say that presidents can’t be charged for crimes they may have done while in office, even after they are no longer the president.

    The court panel with three judges, including one Republican and two Democrats, rejected the argument last week. They said that the former president can no longer use executive immunity to protect himself from prosecution.

    Now, Mr Trump’s lawyers want the Supreme Court to stop the lower court’s decision so that all the judges on the DC Circuit court can look at the case again.

    In their court document, they said that if the former president is not given immunity, it could create a pattern where similar legal cases happen more often.

    Mr Trump’s lawyers said that if the President is not protected from being charged with a crime, the position of the President will not be the same anymore.

    If the lower court says no to reviewing the case, Mr. Trump wants to wait to see what the Supreme Court says before making any more legal moves.

    The highest court could answer Mr Trump’s request in some different ways.

    It might say no to his request to stop the decision, which would start the trial again. It might say no to Mr. Trump’s appeal, which would stop his argument that he has immunity.

    The court might decide to listen to Mr. Trump’s appeal right away, without waiting for the lower court to review it. It could make a quick decision, just like it’s doing for another case about whether Mr. Trump can be on the 2024 election ballot.

    It might also choose to schedule the hearing in the court as usual, which might make the trial in the case take longer to happen, possibly after the November election.

    The Supreme Court said no to a request from Special Counsel Jack Smith to make a quick decision on Mr. Trump’s immunity argument.

    It is not known when the Supreme Court will make a decision on Mr.

  • Senior police officer Yakubu Ayamga challenges media reports surrounding his arrest

    Senior police officer Yakubu Ayamga challenges media reports surrounding his arrest

    In response to recent online publications about his arrest during Supreme Court proceedings in November 2023, Assistant Commissioner of Police and lawyer Akolgo Yakubu Ayamga issued a detailed rejoinder.

    Ayamga’s account challenges the accuracy of media reports surrounding his arrest and provides nuanced details.

    The incident occurred on November 14, 2023, following Ayamga’s impassioned presentation before the Supreme Court.

    According to Ayamga, Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo interrupted him, stating he was shouting, leading to an order to resume his seat. Disagreement escalated after offensive remarks from the Chief Justice, resulting in Ayamga’s arrest.

    In his rejoinder, Ayamga emphasizes that the arrest was not related to his disagreement with the Court’s judgment, as initially reported. He argues that a respectful disagreement with a judge’s off-judgment remark should not lead to arrest.

    Ayamga claims his arrest was influenced by the Chief Justice‘s rush of anger, prejudice, and malice, constituting an abuse of judicial power.

    “Presumptions aside, a respectful and fearless disagreement with off judgment remark of a judge is not a criminal offence to trigger arrest and detention. The arrest was unconscionable, irrational, unfair and without due process from the perspective of a reasonable, fair-minded and informed independent person.

    “The arrest was merely influenced by a rush of anger, prejudice and malice aforethought which constitute impropriety or abuse of prestige judicial power by the Chief Justice,” the prosecutor stated in his rejoinder.

    In response to the alleged abuse of power, Ayamga has filed a complaint with the Commissioner of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) to investigate the incident and the purported cover-up by public officers.

    Read the rejoinder below:

    REJOINDER-ARRESTDownload
  • Only the Supreme Court can verbally summon someone – Lawyer Maurice Ampaw on Manhyia’s request for his presence

    Only the Supreme Court can verbally summon someone – Lawyer Maurice Ampaw on Manhyia’s request for his presence

    Private Legal Practitioner, Lawyer Maurice Ampaw, has contended that the authority to verbally summon individuals resides exclusively with the Supreme Court.

    Speaking to Joy FM, the NPP member expressed uncertainty regarding the grounds for his own summons but affirmed his readiness to comply with the Kumasi Traditional Council’s invitation.

    “Only the Supreme Court has the right to summon anyone verbally. I don’t even know why I am being called. I will go on Monday out of respect, as I speak, I do not know which issue is at stake, which comments I have made” he added.

    The Kumasi Traditional Council issued a one-week ultimatum to the NPP leadership to present Chairman Wontumi, also known as Bernard Antwi Boasiako, before the Manhyia Palace.

    This directive follows alleged derogatory remarks made by Chairman Wontumi about the Asantehene approximately two weeks ago.

    Chairman Wontumi is expected to appear alongside Lawyer Maurice Ampaw, who is similarly accused of making derogatory statements on radio.

    The lawyer strongly criticized the chiefs of the Ashanti Kingdom for summoning Ashanti Regional Chairman, Bernard Antwi Boasiako, also known as Chairman Wontumi.

    During an appearance on the ‘Mmra ne Abrabo’ show on Wontumi TV, the lawyer accused the chiefs of engaging in questionable activities such as theft and girlfriend snatching.

    He contended that these chiefs are unworthy of discussing Chairman Wontumi, citing allegations of multiple land sales among them.

    “The chiefs ‘dragging’ Chairman Wontumi, have you finished solving your problems? Some of you are thieves,” he claimed.

    Mr Ampaw questioned the chiefs’ priorities, suggesting they should focus on resolving their own issues before scrutinizing Chairman Wontumi.



    However, maintaining his stance on the comments made before the summons, Mr Ampaw asserted that he spoke in the public interest.

    “I did it in the public interest. It is a matter of public interest. Everything that I said there, I am responsible. Chairman Wontumi is not responsible. If the Traditional Council deems it fit to invite me, they should provide better particulars,” he said.

    He emphasized his responsibility for the statements and calls on the Traditional Council to provide better particulars if an invitation is deemed necessary.


    Meanwhile, in response to the escalating conflict, the NPP has instructed its members to refrain from making sensitive comments about the Manhyia Palace.

  • Supreme Court to rule on celebrity alcohol ad ban on April 10

    Supreme Court to rule on celebrity alcohol ad ban on April 10

    The Supreme Court has scheduled April 10 for the delivery of its judgment in a case challenging the Food and Drug Authority’s (FDA) directive that prohibits well-known individuals and professionals, including musicians, from advertising alcoholic beverages.

    In 2016, the FDA implemented guidelines for food and beverage advertising, specifying that alcoholic beverage ads should not feature well-known personalities or professionals.

    Mark Darlington Osae, the plaintiff and manager for musicians Reggie N Bollie, argues that the directive is discriminatory and violates the constitution.

    He seeks an injunction against the FDA, interpreting articles 17(1) and 17(2) of the constitution as evidence of discrimination.

    The case, filed in November 2022, is reaching its conclusion, with both parties submitting memoranda of issues for the Supreme Court’s determination. The court has adjourned the case to April 10 for judgment.

  • John Mahama expresses confidence in election victory, rules out Supreme Court contest

    John Mahama expresses confidence in election victory, rules out Supreme Court contest


    John Mahama expresses strong confidence in winning the upcoming December elections, affirming that there will be no need to challenge the results in the Supreme Court.

    Instead of engaging in legal disputes, Mahama underscores the significance of vigilance and united efforts within the party to secure a triumph.

    Addressing party supporters during his “Building the Ghana We Want Tour” in Dzodze, Volta Region, he outlines his vision for a transparent and equitable election process.

    He urges the party to remain watchful throughout the electoral process in December and collaborate to achieve victory collectively.

    “I’m not going to the Supreme Court because I know I’m not going to lose, maybe that person will be going to the Supreme Court. The election is going to be decided at the polling station and the coalition centre and that’s where the NDC is going to be.

    He also said the upcoming election will be the best in the history of Ghana.

    “We won’t go to the Supreme Court again because we know we won’t get justice. We are going to police this election and it is going to be the best policed election in the history of Ghana and we are going to follow the results every step of the way until the final result is declared.”

  • Domelevo thanks persons who orchestrated his removal from office

    Domelevo thanks persons who orchestrated his removal from office

    Former Auditor-General Daniel Domelevo has expressed gratitude to those responsible for his removal from office. 

    Domelevo, known for his efforts in combating corruption, was controversially taken out of office, raising questions about the circumstances surrounding his departure.

    Speaking on the matter, Domelevo stated that he appreciates the individuals involved for various reasons, indicating a level of acceptance despite the circumstances. 

    “Those who got me out of office served their interest and they also succeeded in marketing me very well for which I am grateful to them for the pro bono work they did for me. Even though they secured their interests interestingly.

    “People meet me and congratulate me on the Supreme Court’s ruling but I tell them the court ruled in the president’s favour not mine,” he said.

    In a recent interview with veteran journalist Kwesi Pratt Jnr on Pan African TV, Daniel Domelevo, the former Auditor General, shared that despite the Supreme Court rulings being in his favor, the timing of the decisions prevented his reinstatement to the position.

    Nevertheless, the circumstances surrounding his removal have opened doors for him to secure international appointments.

    To him, he was removed from office because he was inconveniencing the presidency with his auditing style which would have cost the government the 2020 elections. rewrite as a lead of a story

    For this reason, he believed that the government pushed him aside so it could have its way.

    “First and foremost, I think I was inconveniencing the presidency or the government with the type of auditing I was doing, so they needed me out. With 2020 being an election year, if my report came out by June 2020 before the election they didn’t know what it was going to be for them. By this, they won by pushing me aside,” he stated.

    When asked about what he has been doing since leaving office, Daniel Yao Domelevo mentioned that he has since been consulting with the World Bank and other international firms.

    “ I have been providing consultancy services across the globe for some of the international financial institutions which have sent me to several countries in Africa and Asia.

    “…For now, I don’t do anything in Ghana, I only come for visits…there has not been any request for my service here in Ghana but I am more than happy to work for Ghana because there is nowhere better than home,” he added.

  • I’m grateful to those who removed me from office – Daniel Domelevo

    I’m grateful to those who removed me from office – Daniel Domelevo

    Former Auditor-General Daniel Domelevo has expressed gratitude to those responsible for his removal from office. 

    Domelevo, known for his efforts in combating corruption, was controversially taken out of office, raising questions about the circumstances surrounding his departure.

    Speaking on the matter, Domelevo stated that he appreciates the individuals involved for various reasons, indicating a level of acceptance despite the circumstances. 

    “Those who got me out of office served their interest and they also succeeded in marketing me very well for which I am grateful to them for the pro bono work they did for me. Even though they secured their interests interestingly.

    “People meet me and congratulate me on the Supreme Court’s ruling but I tell them the court ruled in the president’s favour not mine,” he said.

    In a recent interview with veteran journalist Kwesi Pratt Jnr on Pan African TV, Daniel Domelevo, the former Auditor General, shared that despite the Supreme Court rulings being in his favor, the timing of the decisions prevented his reinstatement to the position.

    Nevertheless, the circumstances surrounding his removal have opened doors for him to secure international appointments.

    To him, he was removed from office because he was inconveniencing the presidency with his auditing style which would have cost the government the 2020 elections. rewrite as a lead of a story

    For this reason, he believed that the government pushed him aside so it could have its way.

    “First and foremost, I think I was inconveniencing the presidency or the government with the type of auditing I was doing, so they needed me out. With 2020 being an election year, if my report came out by June 2020 before the election they didn’t know what it was going to be for them. By this, they won by pushing me aside,” he stated.

    When asked about what he has been doing since leaving office, Daniel Yao Domelevo mentioned that he has since been consulting with the World Bank and other international firms.

    “ I have been providing consultancy services across the globe for some of the international financial institutions which have sent me to several countries in Africa and Asia.

    “…For now, I don’t do anything in Ghana, I only come for visits…there has not been any request for my service here in Ghana but I am more than happy to work for Ghana because there is nowhere better than home,” he added.

  • Presidential result dispute to be heard by DR Congo Supreme Court

    Presidential result dispute to be heard by DR Congo Supreme Court

    Highest court in Congo is going to start listening to a complaint about the recent election for president.

    Last week, Théodore Ngoy submitted a request to cancel the presidential election results because he only got 0. 02% of the votes.

    He called the results fake.

    The two main candidates who were against the government, Moïse Katumbi and Martin Fayulu, argued about the election results but chose not to take the issue to court.

    The Constitutional Court will decide something before January 12th, when the electoral body will announce the final results.

    If Mr Ngoy’s challenge is not successful, President Felix Tshisekedi will be sworn in for another term on 20 January. He won the election with 73% of the vote.

    The December 20 election had a lot of problems with getting everything where it needed to go. It had to continue for an extra day in some big areas of the country.

    On Sunday, the voting officials decided that 82 people running for political positions should not be allowed to run because they were involved in cheating and violent actions.

  • Barker-Vormawor fires judiciary; says it’s worse than Ghana’s economy

    Prominent lawyer and activist, Oliver Barker-Vormawor, has criticized the Ghanaian judiciary, highlighting a catalogue of its deficiencies.

    Expressing further apprehension, he raised concerns about the Supreme Court‘s hindrance to the dispensation of justice, emphasizing issues such as bureaucratic hurdles, the concentration of power, and instances of its alleged abuse.

    In a social media update posted on January 4, 2024, he pointed out the example of the U.S. Supreme Court, highlighting how it has implemented measures enabling the public to subscribe for notifications on all court filings.

    He noted that comparatively, “In the Ghana Supreme Court, lawyers don’t even know their cases which have been listed will not be heard that day till they have sat in the Court for 5 hours.

    “In fact, sometimes even, you don’t even know whether and the day your case has be scheduled. Now, you even have to wait for the Chief Justice’s pleasure to get a date. When she has travelled out of the country, or gone for AGLOW meeting, you keep waiting for her,” he wrote.

    He sued for sweeping reforms at the apex court insisting that the judiciary was more problematic that Ghana’s economy.

    “Our judicial system is truly worse than our economy. And yet they lack the humility to accept that the whole system is dysfunctional, corrupt and in need of sweeping reforms! Out with the old!” his post concluded.

    Read his full post below:

    Can I rant?

    The US Supreme Court now allows the general public to sign up for email notifications of every court filing. Yes, Everyone, anywhere in the whole world, is able to know what is happening in that court every single day. Transparency and predictability!

    In the Ghana Supreme Court, lawyers don’t even know their cases which have been listed will not be heard that day till they have sat in the Court for 5 hours. In fact, sometimes even, you don’t even know whether and the day your case has be scheduled. Now, you even have to wait for the Chief Justice’s pleasure to get a date. When she has travelled out of the country, or gone for AGLOW meeting, you keep waiting for her

    Yet, in all this, if you call the Ghana Supreme Court useless, Tin Gods and super humans that they are, they will lose their s*** and be hauling you to abuse their powers of contempt.

    Only incompetence abhors critique!!! Only weak egos gatekeep mediocrity.

    Like castrated cowards and eunuchs, lawyers, parliament, civil society and everyone watches on as law and power is abused to service fragile egos!

    Our judicial system is truly worse than our economy. And yet they lack the humility to accept that the whole system is dysfunctional, corrupt and in need of sweeping reforms!

    Out with the old!

  • Parliament endorses new Supreme Court justices

    Parliament endorses new Supreme Court justices


    Parliament has granted its endorsement for the advancement of three eminent Justices from the Court of Appeal to the prestigious roles of Supreme Court judges.

    The endorsed nominees, namely Justice Henry Anthony Cofie, Justice Yaw Asare Darko, and Justice Richard Agyei Frimpong, were nominated by the President following the mandatory retirement of three Justices earlier this year.

    The Appointments Committee of Parliament meticulously conducted a thorough vetting process, assessing the nominees’ qualifications and suitability for the roles of Supreme Court Justices.

    The nominations and subsequent approval signify a critical step in maintaining a functional and complete Supreme Court bench, ensuring the continuation of effective judicial proceedings. The new appointees will contribute their wealth of experience and legal acumen to the highest court in Ghana.

    The announcement of the parliamentary approval was made by the Second Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Andrew Asiamah Amoako, during a session on Friday.

    He declared, “This house has approved the Excellency the president’s nominations of Justice Henry Anthony Kwofie, Justice Yaw Darko Asare, and Justice Richard Agyei Frimpong for appointment as justices to the Supreme Court of Ghana.”

  • Akufo-Addo’s Supreme Court judge nominees approved by Parliament

    Akufo-Addo’s Supreme Court judge nominees approved by Parliament

    Three Court of Appeal Justices have had their nominations to the Supreme Court approved by Parliament.

    They are Justices Yaw Asare Darko, Richard Agyei Frimpong, and Henry Anthony Cofie are among them.

    Speaking on the approval in Parliament on Friday, Second Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Andrew Asiamah Amoako said: “This house has approved the Excellency the president’s nominations of Justice Henry Anthony Kwofie, Justice Yaw Darko Asare and Justice Richard Agyei Frimpong for appointment as justices to the Supreme Court of Ghana.”

    Following the mandatory retirement of three Supreme Court Justices earlier this year, the President announced their appointment.

    The Parliamentary Appointments Committee then went through the judges’ credentials on Wednesday, December 20.

  • Ghana doesn’t require a law to check contempt of court – Justice Kwofie

    Ghana doesn’t require a law to check contempt of court – Justice Kwofie

    One of the judges nominated by President Akufo-Addo for a position on the Supreme Court bench, Justice of the Appeals Court Anthony Henry Cofie, has expressed his disagreement with the proposal to legislate a law regulating contempt of court.

    The disagreement arose during a discussion initiated by Francis Xavier Sosu, the Member of Parliament for Madina, who highlighted the necessity of regulating how judges handle contempt cases, emphasizing its potential impact on free expression.

    Speaking before the Appointments Committee on Wednesday, December 20, Justice Cofie emphasized that while contempt cases may not be frequent, the power to address them is a crucial tool that empowers judges to counter individuals seeking to abuse and threaten the judiciary.

    “I don’t think that there should be a law as we have now in the UK on contempt. In all honesty, how many contempt cases come before the court across the country in a year? they are very few. For the number of years that I have sat as a judge, I don’t even know the number of times I have convicted somebody of contempt.”

    Furthermore, Justice Cofie cautioned individuals to exercise circumspection and control their emotions when discussing matters related to the judiciary to avoid potential legal consequences.

    President Akufo-Addo nominated three Court of Appeal Justices to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court bench on November 10. The nominees include Justice Henry Anthony Cofie, Justice Yaw Asare Darko, and Justice Richard Agyei Frimpong.

  • We are working not to slack with A.I., other tech trends – Justice Anthony Kwofie

    We are working not to slack with A.I., other tech trends – Justice Anthony Kwofie

    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.

  • LIVESTREAMING: Appointments Committee vets Akufo-Addo’s Supreme Court Justice nominees

    LIVESTREAMING: Appointments Committee vets Akufo-Addo’s Supreme Court Justice nominees

    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 to vet 3 Supreme Court nominees on today

    Parliament to vet 3 Supreme Court nominees on today

    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.

  • Vetting of Supreme Court nominees scheduled for December 20

    Vetting of Supreme Court nominees scheduled for December 20

    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.

  • I was nervous but had to think on my feet – Young lawyer applauded by CJ, other judges reveals

    I was nervous but had to think on my feet – Young lawyer applauded by CJ, other judges reveals

    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.

    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.

  • Young lawyer ‘ambushed’ at Supreme Court receives applauds from CJ, other judges for excellent delivery

    Young lawyer ‘ambushed’ at Supreme Court receives applauds from CJ, other judges for excellent delivery

    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.

    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.

  • Supreme Court denies Numo family ownership of over 72K acres, including Madina, Adenta, and Oyarefa Lands

    Supreme Court denies Numo family ownership of over 72K acres, including Madina, Adenta, and Oyarefa Lands

    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.

    Others are Otiakurum, Otopram, Brekusu, Kponko, Dedekurom, Sesemi, Teiman, Papao, Ogbodzo, Adaman, Mpehuasem, Otinshi, Otanor, La- Bawaleshie, Tesa, Adjiringano, Okpoi Gonno, Manmormo, Oshiyie, Amanfro, Bobamase, Abokobi, Nyamekurom, Oyarifa and Ogoha.

    The rest are Ajangote, Akpomang, Boi, Pantang, Sempene, Frafraha, Apenkwa, Abladdzei, Ankome, Ashonman, Agbogba, Adenta, Otuwa, Madina, Nkwantanang, Ashale-Botwe, Atwuo-Okuman, Martey Tsuru, Gbatsuma, Okpegon, Ablekuma, Odediben, Agbleshia, Alegon, Mangoase, Teshie and Kpeshie Ridge.

    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.

  • Democracy Hub at Supreme Court over injunction on December protest

    Democracy Hub at Supreme Court over injunction on December protest

    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.

  • Akufo-Addo appoints 3 Court of Appeal Justices to the Supreme Court

    Akufo-Addo appoints 3 Court of Appeal Justices to the Supreme Court

    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.

  • 3 new justices nominated to supreme court by President Akufo-Addo

    3 new justices nominated to supreme court by President Akufo-Addo

    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.

  • Don’t ignore ruling of Supreme Court – Nungua chiefs to empire builders

    Don’t ignore ruling of Supreme Court – Nungua chiefs to empire builders

    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.

    2023-10-30-12-15Download