Tsikata Vrs Republic [2011] GHASC 3 (19 January 2011)

Tsikata Vrs Republic [2011] GHASC 3 (19 January 2011)

The Supreme Court held that the IFC Country Director enjoys diplomatic immunity under LN9 and is not a compellable witness, so the trial and appellate courts did not err in upholding his immunity. However, the IFC as an institution does not enjoy absolute immunity from all legal process under LN9, and the courts below erred in holding otherwise. The appeal was therefore allowed in part: dismissed as to the Country Director, but allowed as to the IFC itself.

Citation
[2011] GHASC 3
Parties
Respondent/appellant: Tsatsu Tsikata; Appellant/respondent: The Republic
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
19 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Diplomatic Immunity, Fair Trial Rights, Subpoena of International Organizations, Relationship Between Domestic and International Law
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law International Law Diplomatic Immunity Fair Trial Rights Subpoena of International Organizations Relationship Between Domestic and International Law

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 6 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsatsu Tsikata

Respondent/appellant

The Republic

Appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and its Country Director are immune from legal process in Ghanaian courts under LN9 of 1958 and related statutes
  2. 2 Whether such immunity overrides the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 19 of the 1992 Constitution
  3. 3 Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in upholding claims of immunity without factual inquiry

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the IFC Country Director enjoys diplomatic immunity under LN9 and is not a compellable witness, so the trial and appellate courts did not err in upholding his immunity. However, the IFC as an institution does not enjoy absolute immunity from all legal process under LN9, and the courts below erred in holding otherwise. The appeal was therefore allowed in part: dismissed as to the Country Director, but allowed as to the IFC itself.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The decision upholding the immunity of the IFC Country Director is affirmed; the appeal is dismissed on this ground.
  • The decision upholding absolute immunity for the IFC as an institution is set aside; the appeal is allowed on this ground.