For those who monitored the 2012 Ghana Election Petition, it’s easy to safely say the current President of Ghana, Nana Addo Danquah Akufo-Addo and legal luminary, Tsatsu Tsikata had their interest far apart. While the President was the plaintiff in the case i.e. the person who had dragged President John Dramani Mahama and Electoral Commission to court, Tsatsu Tsikata was the lawyer who represented the NDC and got the party to join the case as an interested party.

If you are slightly old enough, you would also recall the early 2000s when the state with the current President as Attorney General commenced steps to prosecute Tsatsu Tsikata on the offence of causing financial loss to the state. Before all this, however, the two had been on the same side before.

The date is September 23, 1980. Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo leads a team of fine young lawyers to listen to a decision regarded then as a key matter of public interest. In constitutional law terms, it’s considered an important decision. Mr Akufo-Addo is 36 years old and he’s joined by his good friend Dr Prempeh (sounds familiar? The Prempeh in the name “Akufo-Addo Prempeh and co”), 30-year-old Tsatsu Tsikata. Other lawyers supporting him include J. Glover and Mrs Reindorf. They were representing Dr Kwame Amoako Tuffour, then a lecturer at the University of Science and Technology (as it was called then). Dr Tuffour is currently an elder in the governing New Patriotic Party.

The state was represented by Joe Reindorf, Attorney-General (with him Djabatey, Deputy Attorney-General, C. H. A. Tetteh, Solicitor-General, I. Odoi and Mrs Campbell, Principal State Attorneys). The preceding year had been quite eventful; it marked the first coming of Jerry John Rawlings and the election of Dr Hilla Limann as President.

Fred Apaloo who was the Head of the Judiciary prior to the coming into force of the 1979 constitution was nominated as Chief Justice when it took off. He was vetted and rejected by Parliament. Dr Kwame Amoako Tuffuor, then a senior lecturer in civil engineering at the then University of Science and Technology assembles the legal team led by Nana Akufo-Addo to sue the Speaker of Parliament and Attorney General at the Court of Appeal then sitting as the Supreme Court.

He argued that upon the coming into force of the constitution Justice Apaloo had been deemed to have been appointed as Chief Justice and member of the Supreme Court. The purported vetting and rejection he argued was therefore unconstitutional

Decision

The Court agreed with him and held that it had jurisdiction and that plaintiff had capacity but discharged the Speaker of Parliament as a defendant. It further held that Justice Apaloo was deemed to have been head of the Judiciary once the new constitution came into force rendering his vetting and rejection invalid.

Reasoning

The Court relied on Article 119(1)(a)  and Section 3 of the first Schedule of 1979 constitution to explain that it had jurisdiction to perform the functions assigned the supreme court relating to interpretation and enforcement of the constitution

It also explained that Article 1(3) of constitution allowed citizens to see to it that constitutional order was not abolished. Seeking an interpretation of this form fell within this mandate. The court explained that Apaloo was President and Member of all the courts not because he had been appointed to any of them but because he was head of the Superior Court of Judicature. Relying on 127 (8), the court interpreted deemed to mean he was constitutionally in office once the new constitution took off.

NB Author relied on the judgement of the case

TUFFUOR v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL

[1980] GLR 637

See full decision here