Axim Vrs Attorney - General [2022] GHASC 15 (6 April 2022)

The provisions of Articles 187 and 88 of the Constitution are clear and unambiguous. The Auditor-General does not have exclusive rights to audit public accounts, and the Attorney-General's prosecutorial powers are not subject to the Auditor-General's functions. The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction for interpretation is not properly invoked as no genuine ambiguity or conflict exists.

Citation: [2022] GHASC 15
Parties: Plaintiff: Daniel Axim; Defendant: The Attorney-General
Court: Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Ghana
Judgment Date: 6 April 2022
Procedural Posture: Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome: Petition dismissed
Legal Topics: Interpretation of Constitution, Auditor General's Powers, Attorney General's Prosecutorial Powers, Public Accounts Auditing, Jurisdiction of Supreme Court
Source Language: English

Constitutional Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Interpretation of Constitution Auditor General's Powers Attorney General's Prosecutorial Powers Public Accounts Auditing Jurisdiction of Supreme Court

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2

Parties

Daniel Axim

Plaintiff

The Attorney-General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Auditor-General has the exclusive right to audit public accounts under Article 187(3) of the Constitution
2 Whether the Attorney-General can appoint a private firm to audit public institutions without reference to the Auditor-General
3 Whether prosecution for financial misconduct must be based on a surcharge by the Auditor-General

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed