A highly accessible, easy to use app version of the Constitution of Ghana the supreme law of the Republic of Ghana. It was approved on 28 April through a. The Constitution of Ghana is the supreme law of the Republic of Ghana. It was approved on 28 April through a national referendum after 92% of the Sahara Routledge. ISBN ^ "The Constitution of Ghana" ( PDF). The Public Holidays Law, , (P.N.D.C.L. ) as amended by the Public Holidays. (Schedule Amendment) Law , (P.N.D.C.L. ) and Public Holidays.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Hindi|
|ePub File Size:||27.33 MB|
|PDF File Size:||10.72 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
PDF generated: 04 Oct , Ghana (rev. ). Page 4. 3 DEFENCE OF THE CONSTITUTION. (1). Parliament shall have no power to enact a law. The Constitution of Ghana can be classified as traditionally unitary, in the Ghana as sovereign, with the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. 2. Below is the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, arranged by Chapters. Click on any and read the contents. CHAPTERS. 1. THE CONSTITUTION. 2.
Help Center Find new research papers in: An interpretation based solely on a particular provision without reference to the other provisions, is likely to lead to a wrong appreciation of the true meaning and import of that provision. However, in the application of the general principles of private law, the constitutional values that simultaneously guarantee and restrict the freedom of contract are the highest standard. We will now set out the circumstances which support this impression and whether a transaction of this nature comes within the ambit of article 5 …The PPA between the Government and the first defendant was the result of negotiations between a foreign investor the third defendant acting on behalf of owner of the second defendant and the Government. The appointment of officers and other employees of the Electoral Commission shall be made by the Commission acting in consultation with the Public Services Commission.
Constitution of Ghana. Africa South of the Sahara Outline Index Bibliography. Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic Somaliland. Retrieved from " https: Hidden categories: All stub articles. Namespaces Article Talk.
It does not admit of a narrow interpretation. A doctrinaire approach to interpretation would not do. We must take account of its principles and bring that consideration to bear, in bringing it into conformity with the needs of the time. It is for the courts as the guardians of legality, to ensure that all agencies of the state, bodies and persons relating with the state, etc. An interpretation based solely on a particular provision without reference to the other provisions, is likely to lead to a wrong appreciation of the true meaning and import of that provision.
Thus in Bennion, Constitutional Law of Ghana at p it is explained that it is important to construe an enactment as a whole, since it is easy, by taking a particular provision of an Act in isolation, to obtain a wrong impression of its true effect. The dangers of taking passages out of their context are well known in other fields, and apply just as much to legislation.
Even where an Act is properly drawn it still must be read as a whole. Indeed a well-drawn Act consists of an interlocking structure each provision of which has its part to play. Warnings will often be there to guide the reader; as for example, that an apparently categorical statement in one is subject to exceptions laid down elsewhere in the Act, but such warnings cannot always be provided.
Emphasis mine. LTD v. Ltd v. The Attorney General The respondents applied by summons for summary judgment for the reliefs indorsed on the writ of summons. After hearing counsel for the parties and reading the various affidavits and the exhibits annexed to them, the High Court entered final judgment against the appellant.
The appellants, being dissatisfied with this judgment appealed to the Court of Appeal. Those requirements clearly include the laying of the relevant agreement before Parliament. The agreement is not to come into operation unless it is approved by a resolution of Parliament. The purpose of the framers of the original provision was to ensure transparency, openness and Parliamentary consent in relation to debt obligations contracted by the State. This, to my mind, means that an international business transaction or international economic transaction to which the Government is a party must be submitted to Parliament for approval, even though the nature of the obligation embodied in such transaction is not one of debt.
Thus it overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal which awarded damages to the respondent for breach of contract by the appellants as well as loss of profit and interest on the amounts claimed until the final date of judgment.
The above decision emphasized that article 5 was distinct from the preceding sections of article relating to loan agreement. It was clear that article 5 specifically deals with international business or economic transactions rather than loans and taking into account its language, the overall effect is that as with loans, international business or economic transactions to which the Government is a party also require parliamentary authorization. Where the Constitution stipulates that parliamentary authorization shall be required for certain transactions, then any transaction to which the provisions are applicable that is concluded without the authorization of Parliament cannot take effect.
This conclusion is in line with the intent of the framers of the various constitutions of Ghana as is apparent through a historical constitutional excursion. The origin of the current article is article of the Constitution.
Date-Bah JSC. It was in the Constitution that this long-standing provision on the giving and raising of loans was modified to include another category of contracts, namely "an international business or economic transaction to which the Government is a party". Philip David Elders. Phillip David Elders, a businessman resident in Texas, USA, identified a business opportunity in Ghana and persuaded the owner, the second defendant, to invest in it. The nature of the business was that the Government of Ghana wanted to generate electricity urgently from a power barge located in its Western Region.
For the statutory licensing requirements involved in such projects, the 1st defendant was incorporated in Ghana and made a party to the agreement. Subsequently, a dispute arose between the parties to this PPA.
The Government of Ghana claimed that the second and third defendants had misrepresented to it that they could make the power barge operational within 90 working days and that it was on the basis of this representation that it had entered into the MOU and the PPA. However, this had not happened. This led to arbitration proceedings against the Government of Ghana under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, in Netherlands.
The Attorney-General in June , issued a writ of summons in the Commercial Division of the High Court, Accra, claiming a declaration that the PPA is an international business transaction that needed parliamentary approval and was unenforceable because it did not have such approval.
The plaintiff also claimed that the arbitration agreement contained in clause We are viewing the transaction in the round, without resorting technically to the piercing of the corporate veil doctrine. We will now set out the circumstances which support this impression and whether a transaction of this nature comes within the ambit of article 5 …The PPA between the Government and the first defendant was the result of negotiations between a foreign investor the third defendant acting on behalf of owner of the second defendant and the Government.
This is a significant foreign element in the transaction. Secondly, the first defendant, though a Ghanaian company is wholly- owned by a foreign entity, incorporated in the United Kingdom. Thirdly, the managing director of the first defendant is a foreigner, the third defendant, and control of the management of the first defendant is in foreign hands. Lastly, there were other clauses in the PPA which are usually associated with foreign investment transactions, such as the waiver of sovereign immunity clause….
All these circumstances cumulatively lead us to the conclusion that the answer to the first question referred to this Court is that the Power Purchase Agreement dated 27th July between the Government of Ghana and Balkan Energy Ghana Limited constitutes an international business transaction within the meaning of Article 5 of the Constitution….
It thus set in motion a procurement process for the award of appropriate contracts in accordance with the Public Procurement Act, Act It later assigned all its rights to Waterville referred to as the 2nd defendants.
This was protested against. It entered into negotiation with Government regarding the purported abrogation which resulted in an MOU between them. Subsequently, however, the Government terminated the agreements with the second defendant by a letter written by the Attorney-General. It then entered into negotiations with the sub-contractors of the 2nd defendant, Micheletti and Co Ltd and Consar Ltd, to continue with the rehabilitation and refurbishment of the Ohene Djan, Baba Yara and El Wak stadia.
The agreement reached with them was that Government would pay the sub-contractors the value of the work already executed by the 2nd defendant before the date of takeover by the sub—contractors of the work.
The sub-contractors would then pay the 2nd defendant the value of the work it had undertaken.
Whilst negotiating with representatives of the Republic, the 3rd defendant obtained judgment in default of defence against the 1st defendant on this writ. Negotiations continued between the 1st defendant and the 3rd defendant which resulted in Terms of Settlement which were filed with the High Court on 4th June These terms of settlement were signed by both parties to the action in the presence of their counsel. The 1st defendant subsequently on 28th July , issued a writ seeking to set aside the consent judgment on the ground, inter alia, that it was procured by a mistake due to fraudulent misrepresentation by the 3rd defendant.
Against the backdrop of the facts set out above, the plaintiff, a former Attorney General sued the defendants in this action invoking the original jurisdiction of the Court seeking inter alia that monies paid under the transactions which were not laid before Parliament made the contract void and thus the monies ought to be refunded.
The Supreme Court in upholding the interpretation in the previous case held that;29 29 Per Dr. A contract which breaches article 5 of the Constitution is null and void and therefore creates no rights. Although one accepts the cogency of the argument that there is need to avoid unjust enrichment to the State through its receipt of benefits it has not paid for, there is the higher order countervailing argument that the enforcement of the Constitution should not be undermined by allowing the State and its partners an avenue or opportunity for doing indirectly what it is constitutionally prohibited from doing directly.
The supremacy of the Constitution in the hierarchy of legal norms in the legal system has to be preserved and jealously guarded. The requirement that international business contracts to which the Government is a party should be approved by Parliament has a purpose and it should be made clear to Government and its partners that non-compliance with the requirement, directly or indirectly, will have consequences.
We are accordingly inclined to the view that, where article 5 has been breached, a restitutionary remedy would be in conflict with the Constitution and therefore not available.
In our view, it was fundamentally erroneous in ignoring the effect of article 5 of the Constitution on the transaction. From the analysis earlier made of the penumbra effect of article 5 , we would reaffirm that there is no liability of the State to the 2 nd defendant. The 2nd defendant is thus obliged to return all monies paid to it pursuant to the transaction. The settlement, pursuant to which the monies were paid, was founded on an unconstitutional act and should be treated as null and void.
The facts of this case were as follows: The 1st defendant alleged that the action by the Office of the President amounted to re-awarding the contracts that the 2nddefendant considered it had concluded. The 2nd defendant, accordingly, gave a power of attorney to the 3rd defendant to sue the Government of Ghana to enforce its contract rights. The 3rd defendant therefore commenced two actions on behalf of the 2nd defendant, against the Republic of Ghana claiming damages for breach of contract.
The 2nd defendant obtained judgments in default of appearance.
The default judgments were subsequently set aside to enable the matter to be settled out of court. The 2nd and 3rd defendants later initiated garnishee proceedings on the basis of these consent judgments and obtained garnishee orders nisi. Part payment was already made when the plaintiff brought this action seeking inter alia that the 2nd defendant entered into two international business agreements with the Republic of Ghana, which were not laid before Parliament for the approval of Parliament and accordingly, not having been laid before Parliament and approved by Parliament, they are void.
This conclusion connotes that the two impugned agreements entered into by the 2nd Defendant are null and void, because they were not approved by Parliament. There was thus no liability of the Republic of Ghana to the 2nd Defendant. The unconstitutional contracts, concluded in breach of article 5 , cannot lawfully found the consent judgments relied on by the 2nd Defendant.
The said consent judgments are vitiated by the unconstitutionality of the contracts on which they are based and, apart from declaring those judgments to be in breach of article 5 of the Constitution, this Court has jurisdiction under article 2 2 of the Constitution to order that the said judgments be set aside. The 1st defendant, the Attorney-General, is responsible for defending suits against the Republic. The plaintiff contends that the 1stt defendant has the duty of protecting the interests of the Republic.
The third defendant is a company incorporated in England under the Companies Act The 4th defendant is a company registered under Companies Act Act The plaintiff set out in his Statement of Case, several features of the 2nd defendant which established its character in his view, as a public authority and therefore part of Government, within the meaning of Article 5 of the Constitution.
The effect of this agreement was to make the 2nd and 3rd defendants the exclusive shareholders of the 4th defendant. This concession was to last for 20 years. The plaintiff contended that neither the SA nor the Concession had received parliamentary approval under article 5 of the Constitution although in his view they obviously constitute international economic transactions involving an agency of the Government. The main issues considered were: Accordingly, it is reasonable to infer that the framers of the Constitution did not intend such a result.
Where an agency has a separate legal personality distinct from central government, it usually comes under sectorial ministerial supervision. That oversight should be exercised within the context of the procurement laws of this country.