Statement of Fact:
Following the decision in Sallah v. Attorney-General,[2] which Sallah got judgement in his favour, the Attorney-General instituted the present action and contended that of Apaloo, Siriboe, Sowah, Anin and Archer, JJSC who sat on the case, Apaloo and Sowah were disqualified to have sat on the case.
He further contended that Apaloo and the plaintiff, now respondent were intimate or bosom friends. He also averred that Sallah used to reserve goods for Apaloo and they had been seen eating together at a restaurant.
On the part of Sowah, he contended that his half-sister’s husband was affected in the whole matter of termination of appointment. And Sowah spoke to a minister about his brother-in-law’s job and that meant he had other interest in the matter before him.
- Whether or not the test of real likelihood of bias is passed?
1. The real likelihood of bias test was not passed.
Per Amissah JA, the standard of proof in matters such as this which involves a Judge interpreting the Constitution should not be based on hearsay. It is in no doubt that the respondent and the Judge were friends. But it would be bad language to say they were intimate or bosom friends.
This case could have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt or at least by real likelihood test of bias. The Attorney-General in the end failed to substantiate his claims.
The Court remarked that in Ghana, almost everyone knows everyone (a closely knit society) so if the argument of the Attorney-General is advanced; it may be that no Judge would be competent to sit on any case.
The appeal is dismissed.
[1]Attorney-General v. Sallah [1970]
[2]Sallah v. Attorney-General [1970]
“
