The Supreme Court Is Not Above The Law

The Supreme Court ruling of Tuesday, July 29, 2014 in the review case against businessman, Alfred Woyome has come as a surprise to us and many others. Unsurprisingly, several legal luminaries we have been talking to have also expressed disquiet at the ruling.

They variously described the court’s ruling as "nouvelle", "unprecedented", " far-reaching", "curious", “ a human rights infringement” and "dictatorial". They opined that the right to a fair trial and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court has been sacrificed on the altar of populism and expediency by the ruling.

Indeed, we are shocked by the ruling and cannot help but make an urgent loud call to the Supreme Court to ensure and maintain certainty in the law in our legal system. What is more, Her Ladyship, Chief Justice Georgina Wood must endeavor to be truly blind to the political and populist machinations of the day.

The fact of the matter is that criminal charges had been brought against Alfred Woyome by the Attorney-General at a High Court. The trial was ongoing at the High Court and adjourned to October 2014 - the beginning of the next Legal Year.

Mr. Martin Amidu invoked the review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review their earlier decision to await the decision of the High Court in the criminal trial before making its own FINAL pronouncements on Martin Amidu's case.

The posture of the Supreme Court must always be based on well-established legal convention that where there are criminal and civil trials running concurrently on the same set of facts, the civil proceedings is curtailed until the criminal proceedings are concluded.

On Tuesday the 29th July, 2014 the Supreme Court granted Martin Amidu’s review, going back on its own word and established legal norms. In the process we dare say the Justices of our Supreme Court have themselves have violated the 1992 Constitution.

Has the impact of the action of the Supreme Court not abruptly prejudiced the ongoing criminal trial at the High Court? Will this interpretation by the Judges of the Supreme Court who sat on the review not bind the High Court?

Obviously, the answer is in the affirmative. According to media reports and very unconventionally, Justice Jones Dotse is particularly reported to have said that this was indeed their intention (See Page 60 of the July 30, 2014 edition of the Daily Graphic).

It is our candid view that a court cannot hide under the guise of judicial expediency to the detriment of the fundamental rights of its citizens. If Justice Dotse is to be believed, the slow pace of the High Court proceeding mandated the Supreme Court to intervene. Wow! If indeed the proceedings in the High Court was moving at a 'snail" pace, isn't the job of the Chief Justice to ensure that cases in the High Court are heard timely and expeditiously?

The inference here is that the Supreme Court has sacrificed the right of a Ghanaian citizen to a fair trial by its bizarre interpretation of Article 181 - it is also an interpretation that puts to the test fundamental principles of contract law.

If a State enters into a contract and represents to an investor that it has the full capacity to enter into the contract and that all the laws of Ghana have been complied with and the contractor relies on these promises and executes the contract either partially or fully and the Government of the day then hides behind a constitutional provision which, is of its own violation, did not attempt to comply with, why should the investor be punished?

Our Supreme Court, through a string of cases ranging from Faroe Atlantic, City and Country Waste, Balkan Energy, Isofoton and most recently in the Waterville and Woyome cases has prevaricated and changed the law on this subject to the extent that it has become a travesty.

The impact of the 29th July ruling of the Supreme Court will have far-reaching ramifications on any international transaction between the Government of Ghana and international entities, both private and government, which may not only slow down the country’s development, but guarantees that no contract will be timely performed due to the insidious vindictiveness of our incompetent politicians and technocrats

We ON THE ‘Daily Post’ are of the considered view the Supreme Court ruling is an unfortunate twist of event which does not do justice to our democracy or reputation as an investor haven! Under the NPP we have seen Waterville, Balkan (& under NDC, Woyome)? But wait, was the Woyome "contract" or transaction under the NDC or NPP? Or maybe both? Where was its genesis? What about Shanghai Construction, the contractor who was awarded the contract to build four of the Stadia through no known bidding or tendering process? In the end, they admitted lack of capacity to build the four in the time frame; two of the Stadia were first given back to Waterville, then abruptly taken away from the company and given to their sub- contractors , Michelletti & Consar. Will Shaghai Construction too be asked to return to the nation’s coffers monies paid for work done?

The Supreme Court must realize that it's power to interpret laws and the constitution does not in any way mean a blank cheque to do anything under the sun or above the law! This is food for thought for the judges behind the July 9 ruling.

We shall return!