Supreme Court Throws Out Injunction Against Parliament’s Ministerial Vetting

The Supreme Court has struck out an application for an interlocutory injunction seeking to prevent Parliament from proceeding with the vetting of new ministers nominated by President Akufo-Addo.

In a unanimous decision on Wednesday(27 March), a five-member panel of the court held that the application was frivolous and an abuse of the court process.

The applicant, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, Member of Parliament for South Dayi, had sought to halt the vetting process in Parliament pending the determination of his suit challenging the constitutionality of the president’s decision to reassign ministers without Parliament’s involvement.

But, the Supreme Court ruled that the MP’s case had no direct relevance to the nominees currently before Parliament, as it primarily concerns re-assigned ministers.

Ministerial reshuffle
In the reshuffle, President Akufo-Addo relieved some 13 ministers and 10 deputy ministers of their post. However, the President, in the same statement, reassigned 6 persons out of the relieved ministers into various portfolios.

It is, therefore, the contention of Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor that once the president relieved the Ministers off their posts, their reassignment constitutes a new appointment that requires parliamentary approval.

Reliefs sought
In Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor’s suit filed by Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo, Solicitor for the Plaintiff at the registry of the Supreme Court, Dafeamekpor was seeking ten reliefs from the Supreme Court.

First, “a declaration that under Article 78(1) of the 1992 Constitution, a Minister of State shall be appointed by the President with the prior approval of Parliament” and second, “a declaration that under Article 81(a) of the 1992 Constitution, the office of a Minister of State or a Deputy Minister shall become vacant if his appointment is revoked, terminated or relieved of that portfolio by the President.

Third, he is seeking “a declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Articles 78(1) and 81 (a) of the 1992 Constitution, a Minister of State or Deputy Minister of State who has had his appointment revoked, terminated or relieved of portfolio by the President, cannot be re-assigned to another Ministerial or Deputy Ministerial office without prior approval of Parliament”.

Fourth, “a declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Articles 78(1) and 81 (a) of the 1992 Constitution, once a Minister of State or Deputy Minister of State has had his appointment revoked, terminated or relieved of that portfolio by the President, that Minister of State or Deputy Minister of State must be subject to the requirement of prior Parliamentary approval before that Minister of State or Deputy Minister of State is re-appointed as a Minister or Deputy-Minister of State.

Fifth, “a declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Articles 78(1) and 81(a) of the 1992 Constitution, the Ministers of State and the Deputy Minister of State whose appointments were revoked on the 14th of February, 2024 cannot be re-assigned or re-appointed to other Ministerial and Deputy Ministerial offices without prior approval of Parliament”.

Sixth, “a declaration that failure and/or refusal of the President of the Republic of Ghana to seek the prior approval of Parliament before purporting to re-assign the Ministers of State and the Deputy Minister of State whose appointments were revoked or terminated or relieved of their portfolios on the 14th of February, 2024 amounts to a direct violation of Articles 78(1) and 81(a) of the 1992 Constitution.

Seventh, “a declaration that any Ministerial appointment which has not been subject to prior Parliamentary approval is in direct violation of Article 78(1) of the 1992 Constitution.

Eighth, “an order directing the President of the Republic of Ghana to submit to Parliament for prior approval, the names of the Ministers of State and the Deputy Minister of State whose appointments were revoked or terminated on the 14th of February, 2024 and who were subsequently supposedly re-assigned to other Ministerial and Deputy Ministerial offices for purposes of appointment as Ministers of State and Deputy Minister of State”.

Ninth, “an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Speaker of Parliament, the 1st Defendant herein, from proceeding with the vetting and approval of the names of the nominees of the President submitted to Parliament until the requirement that a Minister of State shall be appointed by the President with the prior approval of Parliament is satisfied in respect to the Ministers of State and the Deputy Minister of State whose appointments were revoked on the 14th of February, 2024 have been re-assigned new Ministerial and Deputy Ministerial offices”.

Tenth, “an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Speaker of Parliament 1st Defendant herein, from proceeding with the vetting and approval of the names of the nominees of the Presidential submitted to Parliament until the requirement that a Minister of State shall be appointed by the President with the prior approval of Parliament is satisfied in respect to the Ministers of State and the Deputy Minister of State whose appointments were revoked on the 14th of February, 2024 and have been re-assigned new Ministerial and Deputy Ministerial offices”.