The Supreme Court will now, March 1, commence the hearing of a case in which two men – Margaret Bamful, an 86 year old retired policeman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Henry Nana Boakye, a pupil of the Ghana Law School – have filed a suit from the Attorney General and Minister for the Interior from the importation of both Guantanamo Bay detainees to the nation.
Madam Margaret Bamful and Henry Nana Boakye about per month ago filed a case from the Attorney General and Minister of Justice and Minister of Interior accusing President John Mahama of illegally bringing the two former Gitmo detainees to the nation, without regards to the laws of the land
Regrettably, both the Minister of Interior along with the Attorney General has not filed their defense at that time of going to press, as to the suit.
The actions of both defendants so represents a violation of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (CI 16) which gives a defendant that is served using a writ and statement of case 14 days to file a reply.
An investigation conducted on February 9, 2016, in the registry of the Supreme Court, shown that Minister of Interior and the Attorney General were served on January 22, 2016 with all the plaintiffs’ statement of case.
The Supreme Court has additionally served on both defendants a hearing notice, notifying them that without their look or with, the case will be called for hearing.
The plaintiffs are seeking among other reliefs a “declaration that on a true and appropriate interpretation of Article 75 of the1992 Constitution of Ghana, the President of the Republic of Ghana acted unconstitutionally by consenting to the transfer of Mahmud Umar Muhammad Bin Atef and Khalid Muhammad Salih Al-Dhuby (both profiled terrorists and former detainees of Guantanamo Bay) to the Republic of Ghana, with no ratification via an Act of Parliament or a resolution of Parliament supported by the votes greater than one half of each of the members of Parliament”.
They’re additionally seeking a “declaration that on a true and appropriate interpretation of Article 58(2) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, the President of the Republic of Ghana, who’s under an obligation to implement and keep the laws of Ghana violated the Anti-terrorism Act of 2008 (Act 762) and also the Immigration Act of 2000 (Act 573), both being laws passed under the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.
The plaintiffs also are seeking a declaration that President Mahama broken Article 58(2) of the 1992 Constitution by agreeing together with the USA government to possess the former Gitmo detainees transferred to the nation.
“A declaration that on a true and appropriate interpretation of Article 58(2) of the 1992 constitution of Ghana, the President of Ghana is below the duty to implement and take care of the anti-terrorism Act of 2008 (Act 762) and also the Immigration Act of 2000 (Act 573), both being laws passed under the 1992 constitution of Ghana”.
The plaintiffs will also be seeking a declaration that, in accordance with chapter 5 of the 1992 constitution, their essential human rights are being breached by President Mahama, by holding the former Gitmo detainees under limited conditions, with no valid order from a court of competent authority and so acting unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs are requesting the Supreme Court to hold the constant and receiving stay of the former Gitmo detainees in the state is unlawful.
Moreover, they may be seeking an order directed in the Minister of Interior to, with immediate effect, return the two former Gitmo detainees in the United States back to the award of price for counsel fees and court expenses and also the United States of America.