Supreme Court dismisses Abronye's 'double salary' suit against Haruna Iddrisu, 9 other MPs and former ministers

The applicant was seeking a declaration from the apex court relative to alleged double salaries taken by these persons when they served as MPs as well as ministers.

Is allowance instantly strangers applauded

The Supreme Court of Ghana has dismissed a suit filed by Kwame Baffoe popularly called Abronye, the Bono Regional Chairman of the ruling NPP against 10 MPs who also served as Ministers and Deputy Ministers in the last NDC government.

The applicant was seeking a declaration from the apex court relative to alleged double salaries taken by these persons when they served as MPs as well as ministers.

The 10 former ministers and deputy ministers are; Haruna Iddrisu, former Minister of Communication; Emmanuel Armah Kofi Buah, former Petroleum Minister, and MP for Ellembelle; Edwin Nii Lante Vanderpuye, former Sports Minister and MP for Odododiodoo; Fifi Fiavi Kwetey, former Deputy Minister of Finance and MP for Ketu South; and Alhassan Azong.

The rest are Eric Opoku, Abdul Rashid Hassan Pelpuo, Mark Owen Woyongo, Comfort Doyoe Cudjoe Ghansah, and Aquinas Tawiah Quansah.

It is the case of Abronye that those ministers and deputy ministers who also were serving as MPs at the time drew double salaries in contravention of Article 98 of the Constitution, 1992.

He is therefore seeking inter alia, an order by the apex court directed at the 10 persons to refund those ‘double salaries’ into the consolidated fund.

You may recall that during the last sitting, the Supreme Court gave the applicant 14 days within which to file submissions on a preliminary objection raised by the Attorney General per the jurisdiction of the suit. 

However, the applicant failed to meet the timeline in keeping with the Court's order.

Therefore when the case was called today, November 9, 2022, counsel for the applicant prayed the Court presided over by Amegatcher(JSC) for an extension to file his submission.

This however attracted the court's wrath and was also opposed to by the Attorney-General.

The Supreme Court then had to give a ruling after the AG's objection.

In its ruling, the court declined the counsel's prayer for extension and called on the AG to proceed with their argument for objection.

In doing so, an Assistant State Attorney told the Court that the suit failed to invoke the court's interpretative jurisdiction. He also said there are other avenues where the applicant's grievance could be addressed.

In its final decision, the Court upheld the AG's argument with respect to jurisdiction.

Additionally, the Court held that the applicant's remedy lies in another forum thus describing the suit as frivolous, and dismissed same accordingly.