In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of Ghana has dismissed an application by Member of Parliament for South Dayi, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, seeking to halt Parliament from approving ministers designated by President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.
Presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, the five-member panel ruled that the application lacked legal basis and was deemed frivolous and an abuse of the court process.
“The application is dismissed as frivolous and an abuse of the court process,” the court held.
Mr. Dafeamekpor’s lawsuit, filed on March 18, contested the constitutionality of President Akufo-Addo’s decision to reassign five ministers without seeking Parliament’s approval.
The suit was against the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney-General. It was his contention that the decision by the President violated Article 78(1) of the Constitution, arguing that any minister who is reassigned ought to be approved by Parliament.
As part of his case, the plaintiff filed an application for interlocutory injunction seeking an order to restrain Parliament from approving 22 ministers designate until the final determination of his substantive case.
However, the court clarified that his challenge pertained to reassigned ministers and not ministers designated for approval by Parliament.
“In the circumstances, there is no need to attempt to stay the hands of Parliament regarding the vetting of the newly nominated ministers designate.
“There is no need to pray this court for an order regarding the newly nominated Ministers whose names have been submitted to Parliament for vetting,” the court ruled. Apart from the Chief Justice, other members of the panel were Justices Mariama Owusu, Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu, Yaw Asare Darko and Richard Adjei-Frimpong. Submissions
The Attorney-General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, and counsel for the Speaker of Parliament, Thaddeus Sory, opposed the application, arguing that Mr. Dafeamekpor’s claim lacked merit and failed to establish a cause of action. They also highlighted that the plaintiff had failed to attend the proceedings or assign a representative to move the injunction application.
“All the five Ministers reassigned have been duly vetted by this current Parliament. It is just that they have been reassigned,” Mr Dame said.
For Mr. Sory, the application for injunction failed to satisfy the established principle of law that the Supreme Court will not use an injunction application to stop a public institution from performing its function, especially in constitutional cases.
Notably, the absence of Mr. Dafeamekpor or his legal representative during the proceedings raised eyebrows. Despite attempts by a court bailiff to serve the hearing notice and affidavit in opposition, Mr. Dafeamekpor’s lawyer reportedly refused to accept the court documents. However, the court deemed leaving the processes on the clerk’s desk as proper service.
The decision by the Supreme Court paves the way for Parliament to continue its constitutional mandate of vetting and approving ministers designated by the President.
