SALL Matters: Attorney-General concedes first group of application for review

Supreme Court
Supreme Court

It’s said that, the Attorney-General of the Republic of Ghana has conceded first group of application for review in the Santrokofi, Akpafu, Lolobi and Likpe (SALL) Traditional Areas case.

The information available suggests that, some facts have been verified to be true on issues surrounding the Hohoe Constituency Parliamentary seat.

Dec. Polls: You’ve unlawfully disenfranchised us; Akpafu and Lolobi Traditional Areas to EC


The excerpts put out by the Founding President of IMANI Africa Mr. Franklin Cudjoe from a press statement issued by the Hohoe Constituency Secretariat of the NDC said;

At the hearing on Wednesday, 17th March 2021 in the Supreme Court of the application for review of the Court’s decision on 5th January 2021 to quash certain orders a High Court in Ho made on 23rd December 2020, Ms. Grace Ewoal, Chief State Attorney, who represented the Attorney-General, conceded the first ground of the application for review argued by Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata, Lead Counsel for the Applicants.

According to the very first ground for review (Ground a)) filed by the Solicitor for the Applicants, Emile Atsu Agbakpe, the Supreme Court fundamentally erred when it referred to the right to vote as a provision falling within the Directive Principles of State Policy under the Constitution rather than being among the fundamental human rights.

Application for review of Supreme Court’s decision on Hohoe Parliamentary seat’s case

The Supreme Court is also said to have erred fundamentally in claiming that the High Court, Ho would have to determine whether the right to vote is a fundamental human right or not since this was something that has been settled by a long line of decisions of the Supreme Court which are binding on all courts, including the Supreme Court itself. In concluding submissions before the Supreme Court Mr. Tsikata stated that students of constitutional law should not have to consider these erroneous statements as legally correct.

Responding to the submissions of Mr. Tsikata, Ms. Ewoal indicated that she conceded Ground (a) of the application.

She however opposed the application and submitted that there was nothing new in the submissions made in favour of the application which must, therefore be dismissed.

My unlearned brain can’t understand the judgment of the Judges – Umaru Sanda

Mr. Tsikata responded to the submissions by stating that the submission made on Ground (a) alone justified the grant of the application for review. One of the Justices, Justice Kulendi observed that even though the concession had been made, it was to the judges to decide if they agreed with the representative of the Attorney-General. “- Excerpts from a press statement by the Hohoe Office of the NDC.



Leave a Reply