Statement of Fact:
Tsatsu Tsikata v. Chief Justice & Attorney-General[1] (Empanelling of the Bench by CJ Case)
Statement of Fact:
In February 2002, the Supreme Court gave a 5-4 ruling in favour of the plaintiff. The Attorney-General who is a defendant in the present case filed a Motion for Review. Before the motion could be heard, the plaintiff filed this writ to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Add the argument of the plaintiff and the defendants.
- Whether or not the Chief Justice can empanel the Bench when his is a party to the suit?
- Whether or not the 10th January 2001, Practice Direction of the Acting Chief Justice, Justice Wiredu (as he then was) is null and void?
- Whether or not there is a constitutional requirement for there to be a panel of eleven Justices of the Supreme Court to hear a review of a decision by a panel of nine Justices of the Supreme Court?
- Whether or not on a true and correct interpretation of Article 133(2) of the 1992 Constitution there is a requirement for the Chief Justice to add two additional Justices of the Supreme Court to hear and application for review of a Supreme Court decision?
- Whether or not the chief Justice can be directed to exercise his discretionary power in a particular way?
1. The Chief Justice can empanel the Bench of the Supreme Court even if he is a party to the suit.
- The 10th January 2001 Practice Direction is not null and void.
- There is no constitutional requirement for the Chief Justice to empanel eleven members to review a decision of the seven members of the Supreme Court Bench.
- Injunction cannot be put on the Chief Justice in the exercise of his duties.
- The Chief Justice cannot be directed as to how to exercise his discretionary powers.
The Chief Justice becomes incapable of empanelling the Bench when is unable to perform his functions. The Supreme Court relying on the decisions contained in Akufo-Addo v. Quarshie – Idun & others[2] and Kuenyehia & Others v. Acher & others,[3] held that unless there is a legal bias, the mere allegation of bias does not mean the Chief Justice is unable to perform his functions.
Also, the Court reasoned that the Chief Justice has the discretion to empanel Justices of the Supreme Court and it he does that, it does not amount to arbitrariness, capricious or bias.
What the Constitution says is that the Chief Justice has the power to empanel uneven number, not less than seven, for review cases. Therefore, when a person is enjoined by statute to perform a function, he is obliged to do same even it is against the rules of natural justice. The court cannot place injunction when the Chief Justice is exercising his discretionary powers.
[1] Tsatsu Tsikata v. Chief Justice & Attorney-General
[2] Akufo-Addo v. Quarshie – Idun & others (1968)
[3] Kuenyehia & Others v. Acher & others (1993-94)
