Tsatsu seeks nine reliefs

As Ghanaians await the outcome of the review of the Supreme Court decision that the fast track court system is unconstitutional, the man at the center of the decision, Tsatsu Tsikata is seeking nine reliefs.

1. A declaration that on a true and correct interpretation of Articles 125 (4), 128 (1) and 128 (2) of the Constitution, all available Justices of the Supreme Court do not have, “a constitutional right to sit” “where practicable and especially in Constitutional matters,” nor do “at least seven justices of the Supreme Court” have such a right as purportedly conferred on them by a Practice Direction of His Lordship the acting Chief Justice (as he then was), Mr. Justice Wiredu dated January 10, 2001.

2. A declaration that the January 10, 2001 Practice Direction of His Lordship the Acting Chief Justice, (as he was) Justice Wiredu, is null and void being contrary to Articles 128 (2) and 125 (4) of the 1992 Constitution.

3. A declaration that, on true and correct interpretation of Article 133 (2) of the 1992 Constitution there is no constitutional requirement for there to be panel of eleven justices of the Supreme Court to hear a review of a decision by a panel of nine justices of the Supreme Court.

4. A declaration that, on a true and correct interpretation of Article 133 (2) of the 1992 Constitution, except in the case of a decision by a panel of five justices of the Supreme Court, there is no requirement for His Lordship, the Chief Justice to add two additional Justices of the Supreme Court to hear an application for review of a Supreme Court decision.

5. A declaration that the power of the Chief Justice under Article 125 (4) of the 1992 Constitution to empanel the Supreme Court to hear cases is a discretionary power to be exercised in accordance with Article 29 (1) (b).

6. An order of injunction directed to His Lordship the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Wiredu, restraining him from acting on the basis of the said Practice Direction of January 10, 2000 in empanelling justices of the Supreme Court for the hearing of cases.

7. A declaration to His Lordship the Chief Justice, Justice Wiredu that he empanel justices of the Supreme Court for cases to be heard by the court on the basis of Articles 128 (2) and 133 (2), and having due regard to Articles 125 (4) and 296 (a) and (b).

8. A declaration that on a true and correct interpretation of Article 128 (1) of the 1992 Constitution, there is no “ordinary bench,” nor is there a full bench of the Supreme Court as existed under the 1969 Constitution and the 1971 Courts Act, Act 372.

9. A declaration that on a true and correct interpretation of Article 128 (1) of the 1992 Constitution, at the time the application for review in Suit No. CM6/202 was filed the number of justices of the Supreme Court was in conformity with Article 128 (1) of the 1992 Constitution on the composition of the Supreme Court.