Case on child streetism: Child Rights, AG given 14 days to file legal arguments, responses

The Supreme Court has given Child Rights International (CRI) 14 days to file its legal arguments in a case against the state in which it is challenging the constitutionality of child streetism in the country.

Further, the apex court gave the Attorney General 14 to file its responses to the plaintiff’s legal arguments.

The CRI led by its Executive Director, Bright Appiah, and the Attorney General’s Office represented by Grace Oppong, a Principal State Attorney have already filed their agreed Joint Memorandum of Issues.

The Memorandum of Issues, filed pursuant to Rule 60 of the C.I. 16 has seven issues which include; whether or not the plaintiff has properly invoked the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court per Articles 2(1) and 130(1), whether or not the plaintiff’s reliefs are justiciable, and whether or not the current condition of street children in the country violates the constitution.

Additionally, it includes the issue of whether or not the current condition of street children in the country is consistent with provisions of the Constitution, 1992,  whether the government is in breach of the constitution by not ensuring that such children receive special protection, etc, whether or not the government is in breach of the constitution for not taking steps to ensure that children do not engage in work that constitutes a threat to their health, etc.

Finally, it captures; whether or not the government is in breach of the 1992 Constitution specifically Article 25(4) for not taking steps to ensure that street children are not deprived of medical treatment, education, and social and economic benefit.

Per the suit, Childs Right International is seeking among others;

A declaration by the apex court that the government is in breach of articles 15(1), (2), 13(1), and 35(4) of the 1992 Constitution for its failure to ensure the protection of the same against moral hazards per the constitution.

Additionally, it is seeking the court to declare the current condition of children living in the street inconsistent with the Constitution 1992 on a true and proper interpretation of (1) (c)and (d) clauses (2), (3), and (4) of Article 28 of the Constitution and clauses (1) and (2) of Article 15, clause (1) of Article 13 and clause (4) of Article 35.

Moreover, the applicant argues that by not taking steps to ensure that children receive special protection against exposure to physical and moral hazards and more, the Government of Ghana is in breach of articles 25(a), 28 (1) (a), (d), (2) (3) (4), 13(1) and 37 of the 1992 Constitution.

Also, they want an order of the court directed at the Government to define penalties for families which do not ensure the observance of rights of children in street situations and define penalties for economic exploitation of children for begging, etc.

Furthermore, an order was directed to the Government to improve the country’s healthcare by providing free primary health services to poor children on the streets and providing procedures to be followed for the same.

The seven-member panel of the court presided over by Baffoe-Bonnie(JSC) has meanwhile adjourned the case sine die.