PENTECOST UNIVERSITY

LAW FACULTY

LECTURER: PATRICK DADZIE

COURSE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ASSIGNMENT

BRIEFING OF CASES

NAME: BOATENG AMO ALBERT

STUDENT ID: PULB23210058

1. J.H MENSAH V ATTORNEY GENERAL

Procedure:

The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Ghana.

Facts:

The plaintiff, J.H. Mensah, challenged the appointment of

ministers of state.

The central issue was whether the appointment of ministers

required prior approval from Parliament.

The Attorney General argued that ministers continued to hold

office even after the dissolution of Parliament.

Issues:

 Whether or not the appointment of ministers

necessitate prior approval from Parliament?

 Whether or not ministers remain in office despite the

dissolution of Parliament

Holding:

 The Court held that the appointment of ministers indeed

required prior approval from Parliament.

 Ministers, whether new or reinstated, must receive this

approval.
Reasoning:

 Article 78(1) of the Constitution stipulates that Presidential

nominees for ministers must be approved by Parliament.

 This constitutional provision ensures that ministerial

appointments undergo scrutiny and approval by the
legislative body.

 The Constitution does not differentiate between retained

(reappointed) and new ministers during the approval
process.

 Consequently, all ministers, regardless of their status, must

receive prior approval from Parliament.

Conclusion:
The phrase “prior approval” encompasses various aspects,
including screening, assessment, scrutiny, and vetting.
The Court clarified that this term is not a rigid legal definition
but rather a practical requirement for parliamentary consent
before appointing a Minister or Deputy Minister.

In summary, the Court held that ministerial appointments

require prior approval from Parliament, irrespective of whether
the minister is new or reinstated.
MANSIMA V ATTORNEY GENERAL

Facts:
 The plaintiffs were a liquor distilling company.

 The defendants harassed them by claiming they had not

joined a liquor distilling association.

 The plaintiffs sued, asserting that this act violated

their freedom of association as stipulated under Article
21 of the 1992 Constitution.

 They argued that this violation further went against

the letter and spirit of the constitution.
Procedure:
The case was heard at the Supreme Court of Ghana.

Issues:
 Whether the sections 3(1) and 21 of LI 239 are inconsistent
with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, 1992.

 Whether these sections are void and ought to be set aside.

Holdings:
sections 3(1) and 21 of LI 239 were inconsistent with the
Constitution and were declared void.

Reasoning:
 Article 1(2) of the 1992 Constitution establishes that the
Constitution is the supreme law of Ghana. Any other law
inconsistent with it is void to the extent of the inconsistency.

In view of Articles 1(2) and 11(5), the Constitution directs

that existing laws be construed with modifications necessary
to bring them into conformity with its provisions.

Therefore, sections 3(1) and 21 of LI 239 were inconsistent

with the Constitution and were declared void.
This case underscores the importance of upholding
constitutional rights and ensuring that laws align with the
supreme law of the land.

Adofo and others v Attorney General :

The plaintiff filed a Writ to be issued by three prominent people

namely, Ernest Adofo, Paul K Sekley and Samuel Ntiful for
themselves and on behalf of 70 other workers of the COCOBOD
retrenched in September 1994”. In the accompanying Statement
of Case, verified by an affidavit deposed to by the first Plaintiff,
the Plaintiffs stated that they were citizens of Ghana and former
employees of the Ghana Cocoa Board. Furthermore,the
plaintiffs stated that in or about 1994 numbering about 70
employees were declared redundant and their employment
terminated. Their terminal benefits were not paid them, as they
claimed with evidence. When they inquired about these benefits,
they alleged that they were informed of PNDC Law 125, which
was said to empower the Ghana Cocoa Board to terminate their
employment and to indemnify the Board from any liability for
the payment of retirement benefits in accordance with the
collective agreement of these employees. The Plaintiffs
contended that PNDCL 125 was unconstitutional, as it offended
against the express stipulation in Article 36 of the 1992
Constitution.
 Issues:

 Whether or not the PNDCL 125 ceased to exist or have any

effect upon the coming into effect of the 1992 Constitution.

Whether or not the PNDCL 125 was inconsistent with the

Constitution and had a discriminatory impact on certain
workers.

 Whether or not the PNDCL 125 was unconscionable.

1. Holdings:

 The court unanimously upheld the plaintiffs’ claims.

 It declared PNDCL 125 unconstitutional and ordered its

removal from Ghana’s statute books.

Reasonings:

This case underscored the importance of protecting workers’

rights in Ghana.

1. The judgment highlighted the need for constitutional

interpretation to safeguard fundamental rights.

In summary, the court’s decision upheld the plaintiffs’ claims,

declaring PNDCL 125 unconstitutional and ensuring justice for
the retrenched workers.
N.P.P. V Attorney General:

Facts:

The plaintiff, a political party registered as a body corporate, in

an action against the Attorney-General invoked the original
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under article 2(1) and 130 of
the Constitution, 1992 for a declaration that: (1) the Council of
Indigenous Business Associations Law, 1993 (PNDCL 312) was
inconsistent with and a contravention of articles 21(1)(e), 35(1)
and 37(2)(a) and (3) of the Constitution, 1992 and consequently
void. The Attorney-General, however, raised a preliminary
objection to the action on the grounds that (a) only a natural
person could bring an action under article 2(1) of the
Constitution; and (b) articles 35(1) and 37(2)(a) and (3) which
were part of the provisions of the Directive Principles of State
Policy under chapter 6 of the Constitution, 1992 were not
justiciable. Furthermore, the Attorney-General contended, inter
alia, on the merits that since PNDCL 312 had been enacted
upon the petition of the associations specified in the schedule
to the Law to enable them to freely operate under the umbrella
of a council similar to the Trades Union Congress, it was not in
breach of their right to form or join any association of their
choice under Article (21)(e) and 37(2)(a) of the constitution

Proceedings:

The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Ghana

Issues:

 The main issue in this case was whether the amendment to

the CIBA decree disqualifying dual citizens from holding
public office, including positions in Parliament, was
constitutional.

 Whether or not the application of the Labour Act 2003 (Act

651) to the workers of the Customs, Excise, and Preventive
Service (CEPS) was constitutional.

 Whether or not application was inconsistent with or in

contravention of Article 24(4) of the Constitution.

 Whether or not the Collective Bargaining Certificate issued

to CEPS was void.

Holdings :

The Supreme Court of Ghana held that the amendment to the

CIBA decree was unconstitutional. The court ruled in favor of
the NPP and declared that the disqualification of dual citizens
from holding public office was a violation of their constitutional
rights.

Reasonings:
The court based its decision on the provisions of the
Constitution of Ghana, which guaranteed certain rights to
citizens, including the right to participate in public affairs. The
court held that the amendment to the CIBA decree unjustly
discriminated against dual citizens and deprived them of their
constitutional rights without a compelling reason.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of Ghana ruled in favor of the

NPP and declared that the amendment to the CIBA decree
disqualifying dual citizens from holding public office was
unconstitutional. This case highlights the importance of
upholding constitutional rights and principles, even in the
context of national security and public office eligibility.

Agyei Twum v Attorney General

Facts:

The plaintiff, Frank Agyei Twum, filed a writ against the

Attorney-General.

The case involved a preliminary objection raised by the second

defendant regarding the composition of the Court.

The second defendant objected to the empaneling of the Court

by the incumbent Chief Justice, alleging an interest in the
outcome of the suit.

The plaintiff responded to the preliminary objection, asserting

that the Chief Justice’s involvement was valid

Proceedings:
The case was heard at the Supreme Court of Ghana

Issues:

Whether or not a prima facie case has been established.

Whether or not the Chief Justice should preside over his own
personal related cases.

Holdings:

on the first issue the court held that prima facie must be
established before the president can set up an investigative
committee.

The court reasoned that those details prescribed by the

defendant are not necessary in order to reach a conclusion on
the declaration regarding the need for a prima facie case to be
established.