Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, has defended the High Court's decision not to refer constitutional questions raised in the trial of New Patriotic Party (NPP) Ashanti Regional Chairman Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, to the Supreme Court.

According to him, Ghanaian law does not require a trial judge to refer every issue labelled as constitutional by a party, stressing that judges must first determine whether a genuine issue of constitutional interpretation exists.

His comments come after the NPP criticised the High Court's refusal to refer constitutional questions to the Supreme Court, arguing that the decision contributed to a miscarriage of justice in Chairman Wontumi's trial.

Speaking on Joy FM's Newsnight on July 21, Dr Srem-Sai said while the right to a fair trial is fundamental, the law gives judges the discretion to assess whether a referral to the Supreme Court is warranted.

"Fair trial is what we all aspire to achieve, and we all must insist on fair trial. But when you raise an issue before a court that you believe ought to be referred to the Supreme Court, the authorities are clear that the fact that one party claims there is a constitutional issue does not mean that the judge should refer it," he said.

He explained that established case law requires a trial court to examine whether the constitutional question is real and substantial before invoking the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

"What the judge said was clear. He didn't see any real or genuine issue on the interpretation they were advancing. He didn't see that there was any doubt on the meaning of the Act," he added.

Dr Srem-Sai said the defence had argued that the legislation was vague because the offence was created in one section of the Act while the punishment was provided for in another.

He rejected that argument, describing it as a common legislative drafting technique rather than evidence of constitutional uncertainty.

"As far as I understand vagueness of law, it is not that the offence is in one section and the punishment is in another. That is a normal rule of legislation," he said.

He explained that the Minerals and Mining Act creates offences in specific provisions and contains a separate section prescribing the applicable penalties for breaches of the law.

The Deputy Attorney-General maintained that if the defence disagreed with the trial judge's interpretation, the appropriate remedy was to challenge the decision through the appellate courts rather than insist that the matter should have been referred to the Supreme Court.

"What you can do is appeal against that decision, but not say that whenever a party tells the court there is a constitutional issue, the court is bound to refer the matter. That would have been an absurd position of the law," he added.