FULL TEXT: Godfred Dame replies Alban Bagbin

Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Godfred Yeboah Dame has rejected assertions that he's been served with an interlocutory injunction in the case initiated by MP Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor.

Godfred Dame clarified that no legal documents regarding such court proceedings have been presented to him.

Parliament halted the vetting process for President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo's ministerial nominations on Wednesday, March 20, due to an interlocutory injunction filed at the Supreme Court by MP Dafeamekpor.

Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin cited this lawsuit as the reason for suspending the vetting process, stating that it rendered Parliament incapable of proceeding with the nominations.

Many have deemed the speaker's action a retaliation following the President's refusal to sign the anti-LGBT+ Bill passed by parliament some weeks ago and a subsequent letter from Nana Bediatuo Asante, Executive Secretary to the President, asking the Clerk of Parliament to cease and desist from transmitting the anti-LGBT+ Bill to the presidency.

Nana Bediatuo Asante cited legal matters before the Supreme Court over the Bill's constitutionality and advice from the Attorney-General that the president desists from taking action on the Bill as the basis for his letter.

Below is the full statement

RE: DECISION TO HALT THE APPROVAL OF MINISTERIAL NOMINESS PRESENTED TO PARLIAMENT IN LIGHT OF SUIT NO. J1/12/24 (ROCKSON-NELSON DAFEAMEKPOR VRS. 1. SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT 2. ATTORNEY-GENERAL)

Respectfully, I am aware of a statement made by your esteemed self in Parliament on 20th March, 2024, in which you communicated the inability of the House to “continue to consider the nominations of His Excellency the President” in view of the pendency of what you stated as “an injunction motion on notice seeking to restrain the Speaker from proceeding with the vetting and approval …” filed in the suit referred to above. 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. Dafeamakpor, 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 filed 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 conducted 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 “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 an 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 of 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 substance and essence of the suit filed by Mr. Rockson-Nelson Etsa Dafeamekpor by a decision of Parliament to continue the approval processes for the nominees. 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 assurances of my highest consideration.

Yours faithfully,

GODFRED YEBOAH DAME THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL & MINISTER FOR JUSTICE

Cc: 1. The Clerk, Parliament of Ghana, Accra.

2. The Majority Leader, Parliament of Ghana, Accra.

3. The Minority Leader, Parliament of Ghana, Accra.

NAY