Attorney-General challenges Bagbin's decision on approval of ministerial nominees

The Attorney-General has raised concerns over the assertion by Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, that the House cannot consider the nomination of new ministers and deputies appointed by President Akufo-Addo due to an injunction at the Supreme Court.

According to Godfred Dame, Parliament is not bound from proceeding with the vetting and approval process

Read full articleof the ministerial nominees.

His remarks came after the Speaker suspended the consideration of the appointees on Wednesday, March 20.

Mr. Bagbin stated that the decision follows an interlocutory injunction filed at the Supreme Court by Member of Parliament for South Dayi, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor.

In his final address to the House before adjourning sitting, Alban Bagbin said the lawsuit makes it impossible for Parliament to vet and process the new ministers nominated by President Akufo-Addo.

But in a statement to the Speaker on Thursday, March 21, the Attorney-General emphasized that the action filed by Mr. Dafeamekpor consists of a bare writ of summons.

He explained that no statement of the case in support of the writ was filed by the South Dayi MP as mandated by the Supreme Court Rules 1996 (C.I 16).

“It is thus correct to say, respectfully, that the suit is not properly constituted. In accordance with Rule 46(3) of C. I. 16, such an action will be struck out where a statement of case in support of the plaintiff's writ is not filed within fourteen (14) days.

“The plaintiff has not filed an application for interlocutory injunction seeking to restrain the Speaker from proceeding with the vetting and approval of the names of the persons submitted by His Excellency the President or indeed any other interlocutory relief.

“Thus, there is nothing before the Supreme Court which may constitute a restraint or fetter on Parliament from proceeding with the approval of ministerial and deputy ministerial nominees presented to Parliament by the President in accordance with articles 78(1) and 79(1) of the Constitution,” the Attorney-General said.

The statement further said that whilst it is true that the writ filed by Mr. Dafeamekpor purports to be an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Speaker from proceeding with the vetting and approval of the ministerial nominees, "it goes without saying that the same is not an application for interlocutory injunction."

"Every application for interlocutory relief in any of the Superior Courts, as is trite, must be by a motion specifically filed and praying for desired relief. The mere statement on a writ of summons of a prayer for interlocutory relief is inconsequential and of no effect."

Mr. Dame said it is pertinent to indicate that the substance of Mr. Dafeamekpor's suit is a challenge on the power of the President to relieve ministers serving in his government of their portfolios and reassign them to different ministries.

"It has no bearing on the approval of persons newly nominated by the President as Ministers and Deputy Ministers and duly presented to Parliament for approval in accordance with articles 78(1) and 79(1) of the Constitution."

Below is the statement from the Attorney General: