SOLE contributor questioning INVESTMENT DECISIONS of SSNIT in COURT

Sharing my notes with those who can appreciate the context:

The Court says, combing through the relevant statute (law), it cannot find a perceptible locus for a contributor. 

That it finds, though, that a beneficiary may sue if pension payments are in issue. 

That there exist sufficient enough regulatory frameworks within the SSNIT structures including recourse to TRUSTEES.

That contributor is not member of Board of Trustees or National Pensions Authority. Not Auditor General or the Finance Minister or an embodiment of Parliament. 

That contributor interest protected via requirement of law for the entity to fully account for its investment decisions. Audited by Auditor General and Audit Report sent to Finance Min. to be sent to Parliament's PAC. 

SUM- that one’s relationship as contributor to the scheme does not create a trustee relationship AT LARGE because that relationship is regulated by law. 

That it has checked Contracts Act (S.5) to see if contributor has accrued / vested rights to ground capacity but didn't find any.

That also in company law (Companies Act), contributor is not shareholder or officer of Merbank to have locus.

That, in the law establishing SSNIT, it was not the intention of Parliament to vest rights in "every single one of the millions of contributors" to sue.

That in the persuasive/non-binding English precedent of Cowan etc cases, none of those cases was initiated by a single individual contributor.

That no exercise of constitutional discretionary power has been exercised against contributor to enable him rely on Article 296 to come to court.

That contributor doesn’t point to “violation or threatened violation” of law in the sale process and that “dissatisfaction” cannot give contributor cause of action. 

Court hints of an available alternative - REPRESENTATIVE ACTION.

I would love to see how the appeal expands this locus issue in this case since there is very little or no judicial guidance at all on same in Ghana.

Once again, I say great job by both Counsel.