...As observers ponder effects
AS MAY 14, the day the Supreme Court resumes, draws near, anxiety is mounting in the Ghanaian populace over who wins the third titanic legal battle between Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata and the Attorney-General, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo and the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice E.K. Wiredu.
But what is even causing more agitation, debates and forecasts is the effect of the verdict, whichever way it goes.
For the benefit of our readers, Chronicle has been talking to some legal brains on the effect, leaving the actual merits or demerits to the Supreme Court to determine.
Starting with the effect a defeat, a third on the trot, will have on the A-G and by extension, the government, this paper uncovered how divided lawyers are on the matter.
The only point of convergence amongst interviewees was that Tsikata in his current bid is seeking a technical knockout (TKO) which will free him from being pursued by the Government for alleged financial malpractice.
One group thought losing the third bout would leave Nana Addo with no lasting scars.
An outspoken exponent of this view, Mr. Akoto Ampaw, who is an Accra legal practitioner, contended that the Fast Track Courts were not established by the executive arm of government but an action by the judicial wing.
Therefore any additional defeat would not reflect adversely on the executive arm which comprises the President and his ministers and made up of predominantly of NPP members.
However, Prof. Josiah Aryeh, a senior law lecturer at Ghana's premier university at Legon, opined that a third will condemn and demoralise the government.
Other lawyers also discussed what happens to the 71 cases already determined by the illegal FTC.
While many agreed with the A-G's position that each aggrieved person could re-apply to the law, others thought until the courts were pronounced illegal whatever they did could be considered legitimate.
As would be recalled, Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata, the former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), was hauled before a Fast Track Court earlier this year for allegedly causing financial loss of CFA 5.5milion to the state.
He refused to enter a plea, and rather went the Supreme Court to seek a declaration that the FTCs are illegal. Tsikata won on February 28 by a lean majority of 5-4.
It is against that judgement that the A-G filed for a review making the Chief Justice to decide to get a bigger panel for the judicial review.
Mr. Tsikata in his third bout in the Supreme Court is seeking a declaration that the discretionary power vested in the Chief Justice under Article 125 (4) of the Constitution should be exercised in accordance with Article 296 (a) and (b) and not on the basis of what he considers an erroneous interpretation of provisions of the Constitution.
The bone of contention is the empanelling of all the 11 justices of the Supreme Court to hear the appeal filed by the A-G.
The chief Justice who did the empanelling reported to have been empowered by a Practice Direction.
In a 24-point suit filed at the Supreme Court, Mr. Tsikata contended that applying the Practice Direction, coupled with the claimed "requirement' to empanel a larger bench, would establish the precedent that each time there is an application for review of a decision of the supreme court, two new judges would have to be appointed.
Luminaries predict that if Tsikata is able to restrain the Chief Justice from increasing the number of justices to hear the appeal, the nine judges who sat in the original hearing wouyld do the job. Or a review will be rendered unnecessary altogether.
Thus Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata, in seeking a nullification of the enlarged panel of the Supreme Court, is looking for a technical knockout of the AG, so that he does not appear in the ring with his application for a review.
But what if Tsikata loses his third case and goes ahead to empanel a larger number and the original decision of the court is overturned?
