Ghana Independent Broadcasters Association Vrs The Attorney-general [2020] GHASC 107 (23 June 2020)

Ghana Independent Broadcasters Association Vrs The Attorney-general [2020] GHASC 107 (23 June 2020)

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate any act or omission by the 2nd defendant that constituted an actual breach of the Constitution as required by article 2(1). The action was based on an anticipated policy, not an implemented act, and thus did not properly invoke the Court's enforcement jurisdiction.

Citation
Ghana Independent Broadcasters Association Vrs The Attorney-general [2020] GHASC 107 (23 June 2020)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ghana Independent Broadcasters Association; 1st Defendant: Attorney-General; 2nd Defendant: National Communications Authority
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
23 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Enforcement (original Jurisdiction) / Judgment on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
action struck out
Legal Topics
Freedom of the Media, Right to Information, Jurisdictional Prerequisites, Conditional Access Systems, Constitutional Enforcement
Source Language
eng
Constitutional Law Media Law Administrative Law Freedom of the Media Right to Information Jurisdictional Prerequisites Conditional Access Systems Constitutional Enforcement

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ghana Independent Broadcasters Association

Plaintiff

Attorney-General

1st Defendant

National Communications Authority

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Enforcement (original Jurisdiction) / Judgment on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conditional access system published by the National Communications Authority breaches constitutional provisions on media freedom and right to information
  2. 2 Whether the action properly invokes the Supreme Court's enforcement jurisdiction under article 2(1) of the 1992 Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate any act or omission by the 2nd defendant that constituted an actual breach of the Constitution as required by article 2(1). The action was based on an anticipated policy, not an implemented act, and thus did not properly invoke the Court's enforcement jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

action struck out