Court to hear Tsatsu?s case today ?

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case in which the former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), Tsatsu Tsikata, is challenging the basis of the Chief Justice?s legal authority to empanel 11 judges in the upcoming review case on the constitutionality of the Fast Track Court.

The defendants in the case are the Chief Justice and the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Nana Addo-Dankwah Akufo-Addo MP.
Counsel for Tsatsu Tsikata, Professor Victor Oware Dankwa, asked for a postponement of the hearing, but it's not know if he was granted one. In a letter faxed from South Africa, where he is attending a human right summit, Professor Dankwa drew the attention of the Supreme Court Registrar to the provisions of Rule 2 (3) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996, C.I 1 which requires that ?the registrar shall during each term publish, within the precincts of the court and of the High Court of Justice in each region, at least fourteen days before hearing, short lists which shall show the criminal and civil appeals or matters which are to be heard by the court.?

Mr. Tsikata who stood trial before the Fast Track High Court for allegedly causing financial loss to the state, filed a writ at the Supreme Court ? the highest court of the land challenging the legality of the trial court and won the case by a five-four majority decision in March this year.

In the current writ, Tsikata is contending that, in view of the clear interest shown by the Chief Justice that his dissenting view in the suit should become the majority view upon the review, the empanelling of two additional justices of the Supreme Court would be a way of increasing the chance of reversing the court?s earlier decision. This to the complainant will be in violation of Article 296 (a) and (b) of the Constitution.

He is thus, seeking interpretation and enforcement of Article 133 (2) of the 1992 Constitution to the effect that there is no constitutional requirement for a panel of 11 justices to hear a review of a decision by a panel of nine justices.

According to the complainant, the same constitutional clause states that except in the case of a decision by a panel of five justices of the Supreme Court, there was no requirement for the Chief Justice to add two additional judges to hear an application for a review of its decisions.

The writ said that the January 10, 2001 practice direction of the former chief justice being used as a reference point should be declared null and void and contrary to Article 128 (2) of the 1992 Constitution.

?The defendant must therefore be restrained from acting on the basis of the practice direction of empanelling justices of the Supreme Court,? the writ said.

Mr. Tsikata further contends that on a true and correct interpretation of Article 128 (2) and Article 133 (2) of the 1992 Constitution, ?there is no ordinary bench nor is there a full bench of the Supreme Court as existed under the 1969 constitution and the 1971 Courts Act.?

He said at the time the application for review was filed, the number of judges of the Supreme Court was in conformity with Article 128 (10) of the Constitution on the composition of the Supreme Court.

Regarding the appointment of Mr. Justice Dixon Kwame Afreh, to the Supreme Court, Tsikata stated that there was no requirement either in the constitution or judicial practice that the Chief Justice should empanel a larger bench other than the nine members who heard the original case.

He expressed the view that the appointment of Mr. Justice Afreh does not confer on him a constitutional right to sit, where practicable and especially in constitutional cases as the application of the practice direction would necessitate nor is it necessary for him to sit on the review of the case.

According to the writ, that in relation to a review, the Constitution has the requirement of a minimum of seven judges, which has already been complied with in the composition of the panel for his case.
Mr. Tsikata is therefore, calling for a direction by the Supreme Court that the discretionary powers vested in the Chief Justice under Article 125 (4) of the Constitution and not on the basis of erroneous interpretation of the Constitution.
Meanwhile, enquiries at the Supreme Court revealed that no date has been fixed as yet for the much-awaited review of the landmark Supreme Court majority ruling that declared the Fast Track Court system, unconstitutional.