Home World Dr Dominic Ayine: Supreme Court judgment in Amidu circumstance disappointing

Dr Dominic Ayine: Supreme Court judgment in Amidu circumstance disappointing

123
0



I have read through the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case I brought complicated the constitutionality of the appointment of Martin Amidu as the Particular Prosecutor on grounds of age.

For those who have possibly not followed the scenario or browse the judgment as issued by the Supreme Court, the challenge before the Court was whether or not a 66-yr previous man or woman can be available an appointment in the Public Services of Ghana?

And posed this problem to the Supreme Court docket for the reason that our Constitution, the fundamental legislation of the land, presents for a necessary retirement age of 60 decades and the probability of a put up-retirement agreement for a utmost period of 5 many years.

In other text, a human being retiring from the a General public Provider Business established beneath the Chapter of the Constitution working with the General public Products and services of Ghana, may be presented and can accept an appointment to continue on to provide for a optimum time period of 5 yrs right after retirement and thereafter the Constitution is silent.

I will be writing a extra in depth analysis of the very disappointing judgment of the Courtroom in a afterwards installment on this page.

However, the judgment of the the vast majority of the Court, by Amegatcher JSC, purported to rely on the case of Yovuyibor v. Legal professional-Common [1993-94] 2 GLR 343 as authority for the choice, in particular as it related to the types of personnel in the general public products and services.

In individual, the vast majority relied on the dicta of Amua-Sekyi JSC in that circumstance pertaining to the classification of workers in the public service.

I must say with all owing regard to their Lordships that, the dicta of Amua-Sekyi in relation to the lessons of personnel in the community services, ended up at finest obita dicta as they had no immediate bearing on the challenge that was prior to the Court docket in that circumstance.

The problem was regardless of whether Police officers who attained the retiring age of 55 two months upon the coming into drive of the Constitution in 1992, were being entitled to the improved retirement age of 60 beneath report 199 clause 1 of the Structure or really should be built to retire at age 55 less than the then Law enforcement Support Act, 1970 (Act 350).

The Supreme Court upheld their case for an increased retirement age of 60 yrs and declared the provision of the Police Services Act, 1970 (Act 350) null and void and of no influence as it contravened report 199(1) of the Constitution, 1992.

As I have said over, I will be crafting a more comprehensive piece on the judgment but for now I wish to leave you with the words of Ampiah JSC in his concurring judgment:

“The Police Service is part of the public solutions of Ghana– vide report 190(1) of the Constitution, 1992. Members of the provider are consequently community officers.

In so significantly as the Constitution, 1992, the supreme regulation of the land, gives that “a general public officer shall, besides as otherwise furnished in this Constitution, retire from the general public provider on attaining the age of sixty several years (vide article 199(1) of the Structure, 1992), and there getting no other provision in the Constitution, 1992 and section 8(1) and (2) of the transitional provisions of the Constitution, 1992 to my brain not staying pertinent to the particulars of this situation, any legislation which states to the opposite is inconsistent with the Constitution, 1992.

For that reason, to the extent of the inconsistency, the Law enforcement Company Act, 1970 (Act 350) as amended…is null and void. A law enforcement officer as a community officer shall compulsorily retire at the age of 60 several years and otherwise.” [@ page 353 of the judgment].

Though this case, opposite to the assert of the vast majority of their Lordships, is not on all fours with the case I brought, make your individual judgment no matter if it supports the summary reached by their Lordships in the bulk.

I shall be back.



Resource url

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here