Supreme Court Explains Ruling Today

The supreme court has adjourned in the afternoon at 14:35 local time.....

Nine of Ghana’s Supreme Court, judges, the highest court of the land, would today Wednesday, March 20 give reasons for their February 28 landmark ruling that declared the country’s fast track courts unconstitutional.

The court by a 5-4 decision declared the fast track court system unconstitutional, but the judges deferred their reasons for the ruling to Wednesday March 20, making room for all sorts of interpretation from both legal and non-legal brains.

As the nation awaits their reasons and also the impending review tomorrow’s is expected to explain further whether the use of computers and recording equipment will not be affected.

“The Dispatch”, a private newspaper asked if these time saving devices are not affected, then was the usage words establishment or established in reference to the Fast Track High Court the reason for its unconstitutional? Another question will be whether those who uttered those words gave them the stamp of authority or would the media outlets who used them could be regarded as authoritative enough?

As the justices read their reasons, Ghanaians will be waiting anxiously, to know the status of the 65 cases that have been decided by the Fast Track High Court. Of the 65, two are criminal and the remaining civil, mainly commercial. Will the reasons give a clear direction as to the status of all the 65 cases? Or will there be a distinction between the two criminal cases and the rest, regarding their status? Is it likely that by the totally of the reason, the status of the 65 cases, as decided would, for the sake of public policy, be as they are?

Or will the reasons limit the jurisdiction of the Fast Track Courts to only civil cases? Will the reasons open the floodgates for those who lost any of the 65 cases to appeal to higher courts for reversal? Will each of the nine justices give their reasons separately? Will the majority consolidate their reasons? How will the reasons affect the government’s decision to seek a review?

Lawyers of Tsatsu Tsikata, former GNPC boss had filed a writ at the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of the fast track court. According to their argument, which was upheld by the majority, the fast track court is not recognized by the 1992 Constitution. He also filed a motion for an injunction to restrain the Attorney-General’s Department from proceeding with the trial.

Mr. Tsikata had made his first appearance at the fast track court on February 12, on a charge of willfully causing financial loss to the state. He refused to enter a plea and declared that he did not recognize the jurisdiction of the court.

The presiding judge, Mr. Justice Julius Ansah, an Appeal High Court, sitting as an additional High Court Judge, entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf and granted him a ?500 million self-recognizance bail.

The five judges who upheld Mr. Tsikata’s view that the fast track high court was unconstitutional were Mr. Justice A.K.B. Ampiah, Mrs. Justice Joyce Bamford-Addo, Mr. Justice Francis Kpegah, T.K Adzoe and E.D.K. Adjabeng.

Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Emmanuel Kwame Wiredu, Mr. William Atugubah, Ms. Justice Sophia Akuffo and Mr. Justice George Acquah dissented.

The leading counsel for Mr. Tsikata, Professor E.V.O. Dankwa, in his submissions before the Supreme Court Justices, argued, among other issues, that the Fast Track High Court was not known to the Constitution.

In his submission, the A-G and Minister for Justice, Nana Akufo-Addo said section 16 of the Courts Act gives the Chief Justice administrative power to create courts, adding that the process or manner in which they would conduct and record their proceedings to facilitate justice is within the powers of the Chief Justice.

The fast track court, he said, was a process of mechanizing the courts to relieve judges of the archaic method of recording proceedings in long hand.

A few hours after the announcement of the ruling, the A-G called a press conference where he indicated the government’s intention to seek a review of the decision. He declared, “I respect the verdict of the Supreme Court, but I disagree with it. I believe the court had made an error.” The government is expected to study the reasons tomorrow and complete the process for the review next week.