The Centre for Democratic Development (CDD), has expressed satisfaction with the Supreme Court's ruling regarding the former auditor general, Michael Domelevo and believes it will establish a precedent in Ghana.Speaking to the media on Thursday, 1 June a research analyst with CDD Gilfred Asiamah says they are happy with the ruling, adding that it will serve as a precedent in Ghana.“It’s not only about Domelevo. It’s about the rule of law.

0

That said, in the future, we don’t expect the encroaching on the office of the auditor general.“It’s a good day for accountability. It’s a good day for good governance and it’s a good day for anti-corruption.”“We’ll keep looking at the structures and processes. If some of them need clarity, we will facilitate that when we come across those issues,” Asiamah said.

1

Listen to the full interview in the attached audio clip below:BackgroundA seven-member Supreme Court panel by unanimous decision, declared the practice where the president directs a serving Auditor General to proceed on leave or to take their accumulated leave as unconstitutional.

2

The panel presided over by Justice Nene Amegatcher also included Justices Professor Ashie Kotey, Mariama Owusu, Lovelace Johnson, Gertrude Torkornoo, Professor Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu and Yonny Kulendi.

3

The landmark decision of the Supreme Court followed an application of the Centre for Democratic Development (CDD) challenging a directive of President Akufo-Addo on 29 June 2020, instructing the then auditor general, Daniel Yaw Domelevo to take his accumulated leave.The plaintiff contended that the directives were unlawful since the president does not have the power to exercise such disciplinary control over independent bodies.

4

The court, however, opted not to issue any other orders including stopping Domelevo from proceeding on leave since he has since retired.The action of President Akufo-Addo followed an earlier directive by former President John Evans Atta Mills that directed the then Auditor General Edward Dua Agyeman on 9 April 2009, to take his accumulated leave.

5

Relief soughtThe Centre for Democratic Development (CDD) in their action filed at the Supreme Court, sought a total of seven reliefs.

6

First, “a declaration that, on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 70(1)(6) and 71), 187(3), (5), (7Xa), (8), (12), and (13), and Article 297(a) of the 1992 Constitution, the directives issued by or on behalf of the President on or between 29th June, 2020 and 3rd July, 2020, instructing the Auditor-General to proceed on “accumulated” leave with effect from 1st July, 2020 for a prescribed number of days determined by the President,

7

are void and of no legal effect, because the said directives are inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the aforementioned provisions of the Constitution as they improperly interfere with the independence and functions of the Auditor General”.

8

Second, “a declaration that, the purported appointment or designation by or on behalf of the President on 30th June, 2020, of one Johnson Akuamoah Asiedu as “Acting Auditor-General” is void and of no legal effect, as the said appointment stands contrary to Articles 70(1) (b), 187(3), and (7) of the Constitution as well as the Second Schedule to the Constitution”.

9

Third, “a declaration that, on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 70(1)(b) and 187(3) of the Constitution, the power to appoint, authorize or designate a person or persons to exercise a power or perform a function constitutionally assigned to the Auditor-General is vested solely in the Auditor-General; therefore, the purported appointment of a person as ‘Acting Auditor-General,” and the subsequent performance of the functions of

10

the Auditor-General by such person, without authorization from the Auditor-General violate the letter and spirit of the aforementioned provisions of the Constitution and are void and without any legal effect whatsoever”.

11

Fourth, “a declaration that, on a true and proper interpretation of Articles, 71(1), 187(12), and 297(a) of the Constitution, the leave entitlement of the Auditor General is, like his salary, are right associated with his office as an independent constitutional officeholder and does not constitute or give rise to an obligation which the Auditor General is duty-bound to assume or else be compelled so to do at the instance and insistence of the

12

president”.Fifth, “an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the President or his agents from issuing or seeking to enforce on the Auditor-General any directive that has the purpose or effect of commanding the Auditor-General to take his leave or to surrender any of his powers or functions to another person”.

13

Sixth, “an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the President or his agents from designating or appointing any person as Acting Auditor-General” to exercise a constitutional power or perform a constitutional function of the Auditor – General without authorisation from the sole duly-appointed Auditor-General”.Lastly, “any other consequential orders that this Honourable Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances”.

14

By CourtThe Supreme Court in its decision today (31 May 2023), granted relief one by declaring that on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 70(1)(6) and 71), 187(3), (5), (7Xa), (8), (12), and (13), and Article 297(a) of the 1992 Constitution, the directives issued by or on behalf of the President on or between 29th June, 2020 and 3rd July, 2020, instructing the Auditor-General to proceed on “accumulated” leave with effect from 1st

15

July, 2020 for a prescribed number of days determined by the President, are void and of no legal effect, because the said directives are inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution as they improperly interfere with the independence and functions of the Auditor General.

16

The Court also granted reliefs two, three and four but dismissed reliefs five, six and seven which were essentially seeking orders to perpetually injunct and restrain the President or his agents from issuing or seeking to enforce on the Auditor-General any directive that has the purpose or effect of commanding the Auditor-General to take his leave or to surrender any of his powers or functions to another

17

person”.

18