Centre For Public Interst Law Vrs Attorney General [2012] GHASC 47 (17 October 2012)

Centre For Public Interst Law Vrs Attorney General [2012] GHASC 47 (17 October 2012)

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the Master Facility Agreement or its approval by Parliament violated the Constitution or Act 815. The requirement that 60% of the loan be used to hire Chinese contractors is not discriminatory against Ghana or its citizens. The Judiciary has jurisdiction to review executive acts for constitutional compliance but will not substitute its judgment for that of the Executive on matters of national interest unless there is clear evidence of constitutional breach. Claims relating to presidential removal are not justiciable in this forum and must follow the constitutional procedure.

Citation
[2012] GHASC 47
Parties
Plaintiff: Centre for Public Interest Law; Defendant: Attorney-General
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
17 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
plaintiff's action dismissed
Legal Topics
Executive Powers, International Agreements, Separation of Powers, Judicial Review, Discrimination, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Public International Law Executive Powers International Agreements Separation of Powers Judicial Review Discrimination +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Centre for Public Interest Law

Plaintiff

Attorney-General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the President acted in breach of constitutional obligations by submitting the Master Facility Agreement to Parliament
  2. 2 Whether the approval of the Master Facility Agreement by Parliament was null and void due to constitutional violations
  3. 3 Whether the requirement that 60% of the loan be used to hire Chinese contractors is discriminatory

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the Master Facility Agreement or its approval by Parliament violated the Constitution or Act 815. The requirement that 60% of the loan be used to hire Chinese contractors is not discriminatory against Ghana or its citizens. The Judiciary has jurisdiction to review executive acts for constitutional compliance but will not substitute its judgment for that of the Executive on matters of national interest unless there is clear evidence of constitutional breach. Claims relating to presidential removal are not justiciable in this forum and must follow the constitutional procedure.

Court Disposition

plaintiff's action dismissed