Legislative process in Ghana case law.

Article 106(2) requires a bill not intended for the settlement of financial matters to be accompanied with an explanatory memorandum which sets out in detail, the policy and principles of the Bill, defects in the existing law, remedies in the new bill which propose to deal with those defects, and requires the bill to be published in the Gazette at least fourteen days before the date of its introduction in Parliament. The Plaintiff says that the explanatory memorandum that was laid before Parliament did not sufficiently lay out the policy change that was being brought by the law, specifically by section 43. The Plaintiff also says that this led to the policy change not being debated enough before its passage into law. The Plaintiff also asserts that the amendments to the new law which allowed for the growth of cannabis with less than 0.3% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) level were belatedly inserted and there was no subsequent report made to parliament as required by Article 106(4),(5) and (6). The Plaintiff submits that this conduct is also in violation of the standing orders of Parliament as well as the letter and the spirit of the 1992 Constitution. This is the argument of the Plaintiff that finds the most favour with this Court. Parliament, by Article 106(5) and (6) is mandated to have a bill accompanied by an explanatory memorandum as well as the committee report by the appropriate committee and have a full debate on a bill before passing or rejecting it.

EZUAME MANNAN V. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT SUIT NO: J1/11/2021 [2022] SLR (SC) 4 · Supreme Court · 2022 · KULENDI JSC

In particular, the lack of debate on section 43 of Act 1019 amounts to not only a direct violation of the letter of Article 106 of the Constitution, but also a violation of the spirit of the law. There was conspicuously, no debate over such a critical shift in policy by Parliament. Needless to say, this conduct and mode of lawmaking defeats transparency and accountability enjoined by the Constitution. The dictates of constitutional fidelity, in our view, require that such a shift in policy, which is intended to result in a novel exception, ought to be debated to satisfy the purpose of Article 106. Failing this, the process adopted by Parliament offends the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. This conclusion does not, in any way, derogate from Parliament's power and independence in the conduct of its own proceedings but in accordance with our supreme Constitution. In the premises, the mode of the introduction of section 43 of Act 1019 violates the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Accordingly, section 43 is hereby struck down as unconstitutional.

EZUAME MANNAN V. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT SUIT NO: J1/11/2021 [2022] SLR (SC) 4 · Supreme Court · 2022 · KULENDI JSC