The Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, has revealed that contrary to the Speaker of Parliament, Right Honourable Alban K. S. Bagbin’s reason for communicating the House’s inability to “continue to consider the nominations of His Excellency the President” on 20 March, 2024, there is no application for interlocutory injunction before the Supreme Court, leaving many to wonder whether the Speaker peddled obvious untruth.
“The plaintiff has not filed an application for interlocutory injunction “seeking to restrain the Speaker from proceeding with the vetting and approval of the names of the persons submitted by His Excellency the President…”, or indeed, any other interlocutory relief.
Thus, there is nothing before the Supreme Court which may constitute a restraint or fetter on Parliament from proceeding with the approval of ministerial and deputy ministerial nominees presented to Parliament by the President in accordance with articles 78 (1) and 79(1) of the Constitution,” the AG revealed after formal search conducted at the Registry of the Supreme Court yesterday, 21st March, 2024.
Rather, what is there, according to the Attorney General in a letter dated 21 March, 2024 and addressed to the Speaker, is an action filed by Mr. Defeamkpor, Member of Parliament for South Dayi, which consists of a bare writ of summons that is not properly constituted.
“No statement of case in support of the writ has been filed as mandated by the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I. 16). It is thus correct to say, respectfully, that the suit is not properly constituted. In accordance with Rule 46 (3) of C.I. 16, such an action will be struck out where a statement of case in support of the plaintiff’s writ is not filled within fourteen (14) days,” the minister clarified.
Lawyer Yeboah Dame intimated in the letter that, whilst it is true that a relief stated on the writ filed on 18th March, 2024 purports to be ‘an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Speaker of Parliament from proceeding with the vetting and approval of the names of the persons submitted by His Excellency the President to Parliament ….’, “it goes without saying that same is not an application for interlocutory injunction.”
Every application for interlocutory relief in any of the Superior Courts, the AG expatiated, as is trite, must be by a motion specifically filed and praying for the desired relief, and that “The mere statement on a writ of summons of a prayer for interlocutory relief is inconsequential and of no effect. It does not constitute a pending motion for such a relief, and no one is required to take notice or same.”
Read below excerpts of the Attorney General letter to the Speaker of Parliament, Alban S.K Bagbin:
In furtherance of my role under article 88 of the Constitution and bearing constitutional responsibility for the conduct and defence of all civil proceedings against the State (including Parliament), I am constrained to draw your attention to some observations made from a study of the suit in question and the results of a formal search conducted at the Registry of the Supreme Court today, 21st March, 2024.
1. The action filed by Mr. Defeamkpor, Member of Parliament for South Dayi, consists of a bare writ of summons. No statement of case in support of the writ has been filed as mandated by the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I. 16). It is thus correct to say, respectfully, that the suit is not properly constituted. In accordance with Rule 46 (3) of C.I. 16, such an action will be struck out where a statement of case in support of the plaintiff’s writ is not filled within fourteen (14) days.
2. The plaintiff has not filed an application for interlocutory injunction “seeking to restrain the Speaker from proceeding with the vetting and approval of the names of the persons submitted by His Excellency the President…”, or indeed, any other interlocutory relief, Thus, there is nothing before the Supreme Court which may constitute a restraint or fetter on Parliament from proceeding with the approval of ministerial and deputy ministerial nominees presented to Parliament by the President in accordance with articles 78 (1) and 79(1) of the Constitution.
Please find attached the results of a search conduced at the Registry of the Supreme Court.
3. Whilst it is true that a relief stated on the writ filed on 18th March, 2024 referred to above, purports to be “an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Speaker of Parliament from proceeding with the vetting and approval of the names of the persons submitted by His Excellency the President to Parliament ….”, it goes without saying that same is not an application for interlocutory injunction. Every application for interlocutory relief in any of the Superior Courts, as is trite, must be by a motion specifically filed and praying for the desired relief. The mere statement on a writ of summons of a prayer for interlocutory relief is inconsequential and of no effect. It does not constitute a pending motion for such a relief, and no one is required to take notice or same.
4. In any event, it is pertinent to indicate that the substance of Mr. Dafeamekpor’s suit is a challenge on the power of the President to relieve Ministers serving in his government of their portfolios and reassign them to different Ministries. It has no bearing on the approval of persons newly nominated by the President as Ministers and Deputy Ministers and duly presented to Parliament for approval in accordance with articles 78(1) and 79(1) of the Constitution.
5. In light of the foregoing, Parliament, in my respectful view, has no inhibition in proceeding with the approval processes for the ministerial and deputy ministerial nominees. There is no risk of a prejudice to the authority of the Supreme Court in determining the substances and essence of the suit filed by Mr. Rockson-Nelson Esta Dafeamekpor should Parliament continue to the approval processes for the nominees.
6. I respectfully bring the matters set out above to your attention and advise that Parliament is not inhibited from proceeding with the approval processes for the
ministerial and deputy ministerial nominees duly presented by the President in accordance with articles 78(1) and 79(1) of the Constitution.
I take this opportunity to renew to you, Right Honourable, the assurance of my highest consideration.
