Full judgment: Supreme Court reasoning in CDD and Others vs. Attorney General
The Supreme Court, in the opinion of Amegatcher JSC, held that the issue of leave of the Auditor-General is an administrative matter within the purview of the Auditor-General and his Management.
In May this year, the Supreme Court of Ghana declared as unconstitutional a presidential directive for the then Auditor General, Daniel Yao Domelovo to proceed on leave and subsequently appointed his deputy as the acting Auditor General while the former had yet not retired.
This was in a writ filed by the Ghana Center For Democratic Development, Ghana Integrity Initiative, and 7 others against the Attorney General.
The events that gave rise to this suit were the June 29, 2020 letter and press release from the presidency which directed the then Auditor General, Daniel Domelovo to proceed on leave and the subsequent appointment of his Deputy as ‘Acting Auditor General.’
Therefore, the plaintiffs, through their counsel, Martin Kpebu went to the apex court seeking, among others, a declaration that the directive was void; that the appointment of his Deputy as Acting Auditor General is void; and an injunction against the president from issuing such directives.
In their Judgment, the Supreme Court, in the opinion of Amegatcher JSC held that ‘the issue of leave of the Auditor-General is an administrative matter within the purview of the Auditor-General and his Management. The directive of the President requesting the Auditor-General to proceed on leave under sections 20 and 31 of the Labour Act 651 violated the functional and institutional independence of the Auditor-General.’
Therefore according to the court, ‘Since it did not comply with Article 146, the directive constitutes a constructive removal and, therefore, unconstitutional.’
Also, the court found merit in the plaintiffs’ argument that ‘the concept of an "Acting Auditor-General," a person designated or appointed not by the Auditor-General but by the President or an agent of the President, to assume and exercise the powers of the Auditor-General in the office holder’s temporary absence, is constitutionally untenable.”
Moreover, the apex court held that the ‘President's directive conflicts with the functional independence of the Auditor-General and, thus, violates both Article 146 and Article 187(7)(a) of the Constitution, 1992.
Other members of the panel were Kotey JSC, Owusu JSC, Lovelace Johnson JSC, Torkornoo JSC, Mensa-Bonsu JSC, and Kulendi JSC.
Visit Dennislaw.com to read the full judgment.
