The Supreme Court (SC) yesterday declared as unconstitutional government's reliance on Article 21 of the 1992 Constitution, to impose restrictions during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ghana in 2020.
The seven member panel of judges presided over by Justice Jones Dotse unanimously held that Article 31 was the provision that deals with public emergency and therefore, the restriction imposed by the government during the pandemic was unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
The court said the full judgement would be ready by June 7.
The SC has struck out the law that allowed President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo to impose restrictions as part of the fight against the coronavirus pandemic.
The government at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, caused the Legislation of the Imposition of the Restriction Act, which gave powers to the President to restrict human activities for the purpose of fighting the pandemic.
Law Professor and Human Rights advocate, Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua along with eight others took the government to the SC.
The applicants sued the Attorney General claiming that directives pursuant to the act such as the closure of schools, and restriction of movements, were unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs, Prof. Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua, Dr Sena Dei-Tutu, Felicity Nelson, Benjamin Darko, Samson Lardy Anyenini, Golda Addo, Democracy Hub LBG and Democratic Accountability Lab LBG went to the SC on the basis that the government erred in the application of Article 21 to curtail the freedom and movement of Ghanaians when the pandemic was wreaking havoc.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
It was the case of the plaintiffs that the 1992 Constitution provides the legal regime for instituting and managing public emergencies.
Their counsel, Dr Justice Srem-Sai argued that Articles 31, 32 and Article 31(9) specifies what may constitute a public emergency (or what may warrant the declaration of "a state of emergency."
The plaintiffs appealed the Apex Court to hold that upon a true and proper interpretation of Articles 21, 31, 32, 58, 93(2) and 125(3) of the 1992 Constitution, Article 21 (4)(c) or (e) of the 1992 Constitution may not be applied to suspend a fundamental human right or freedom during a public emergency.
They urged the SC to declare that the Imposition of Restrictions Act, 2020 (Act 1012), contravenes or is inconsistent with Articles 21, 31, 32, 58, 93(2) and 125(3) of the 1992 Constitution to the extent that Act 1012 empowers the President to unilaterally suspend fundamental human rights and freedoms in the whole or a part of Ghana.
The plaintiffs wanted the court to hold that the Act excludes the special role of the Chief Justice and the Superior Court of Judicature in managing or regulating the suspension of fundamental human rights and freedoms in the whole or a part of Ghana.
They argued that the Act excludes the role of Parliament in managing or regulating the suspension of fundamental human rights and freedoms in the whole or a part of Ghana.
The plaintiffs asked the court to strike down the Imposition of Restrictions Act, 2020 (Act 1012) as void; and any other order (s) or reliefs) that the honourable court may deem fit.
