The Supreme Court upheld thedecision to invalidate Ghana's Marijuana Cultivation Act
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld its view that the laws allowing thecultivation of cannabis in Ghana were unconstitutional by Parliament.
Justice Dotse, the presiding judge, said the parties will meet to give them an opportunity to review their outstanding cases. In July 2022, the court overturned section 43 of the Control Board Act 1019.
This provision states that "The Minister, with the approval of the Commission, may grant a license for the cultivation of cannabis seeds commonly known as 'wee' in Ghana that do not exceed 0.3% THC content in the dry mass for industrial purposes. obtain the fibers or seeds for medicinal purposes.
However, the Apex Court, in a decision of 4 to 3, struck downthis provision and declared it to be a violation of Section 106 of the 1992 Act. The story reads; "No bill, other than the bill mentioned in paragraph (a) of article 108 of this Constitution, may be introduced in Parliament unless—
A. is accompanied by an explanatory document that describes in detail the laws and regulations of the bill, the defects of the existing law, the remedies proposed to remedythose defects, and the need for its introduction ; And
b. It is published in the Official Journal at least fourteen days before the day it is introducedin Parliament. A private citizen, Ezuame Mannan, argued that the explanatory document submitted to parliament did not adequately reveal the policy changes brought about by the law, especially in the 43 articles.
This change in policy, he insisted, was not properlydebated before it was enacted.The Supreme Court upheld this position.
The Attorney General, however,filed an appeal asking the court to review his decision. Mr.Dame told the court that the original committee erred in law.
“Basic and heinous sins cause bad justice. Only at the beginning of this process shouldthere be documentation.
"There is no need for a letter to accompany the amendment made by Parliament. Reading such a bill puts more burden on the parliament and reduces its ability to pass laws, Mr. Dame said. Citizen lawyer Effiba Amihere disagrees. "There is nomiscarriage of justice in the court's decision, we will respectfully declare the amendment to Article 43, which was introduced in private as a full argument. "That it is against the constitution. The AG said that in amending the law, there is no need to have amemorandum, the contents of which are also different from the constitution of the country, the plaintiff's position is that, during the debate, this change is especially the one who is running away from it, not one of them. The country was not informed of the clear change in policy. He said.
Judge Jones Dotse ruled that the courtroom was not full forthe investigation. Justice Jones Dotse, Professor Kotey, Mariama Owusu, ProfessorHenrietta Mensah Bonsu and Emmanuel Kulendi formed the majority while Justices Lovelace Johnson, Amadu Tanko, Samuel Asiedu and George Koomson formed the minority.
blogpay
Total Comments: 0