Supreme Court Overrules Jake's Objection

Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey

The Supreme Court yesterday overruled a preliminary objection raised by Mr that it had no mandate to hear a case brought before it by Mr Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa and Dr Omane Boamah in respect of his right to purchase a government bungalow.

The nine-member court, in a unanimous decision, argued that although the case passed for a land case, which falls within the domain of the High Court, the plaintiffs were not laying claim to the property in question but rather seeking an interpretation of several provisions of the Constitution regarding the ownership of state property, including Articles 20 (5) and 20 (6) of the 1992 Constitution.

Presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, the court agreed that it had jurisdiction by law and precedents to hear the case which bordered both on constitutionality and public interest.

Other members of the court were Ms Justice Sophia Akuffo, Mr Justice S. A. Brobbey, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Mrs Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Baffoe Bonnie, Mr Justice B. T. Aryeetey and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto Bamfo.

Delivering the ruling, Mr Justice Atuguba said the court would have loved to expedite the case but had to adjourn until the Chief Justice reconstituted the panel as one of the judges had retired compulsorily.

In her supporting argument, Mrs Justice Adinyira noted that where there was a case of conflict of interest in the administration of public lands, the constitution confered the right on the public to take action to protect the state.

That, she stated, would ensure that public officers did not breach the constitution to ensure probity, accountability and good governance.

In 2008, Mr Ablakwa and Dr. Boama, Deputy Ministers of Information and Environment, Science and Technology respectively, brought the action against Mr , the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Chairman, who was then the Minister of

Tourism and National Orientation, seeking a declaration from the court that he had no right to buy the bungalow at No 2 Mungo Street in the Ridge residential area he was occupying at the time.

The plaintiffs had argued that the action of Mr contravened Articles 20 (5) and 20 (6) and smacked of cronyism and gross abuse of discretional powers of a public officer.

However, Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey raised a preliminary objection, saying the court had no mandate to hear the case.

His argument was that the right procedure was for the plaintiffs to apply to the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), if they thought he was abusing his office by applying to purchase the bungalow.