WHAT ARE STATE PROCEEDINGS?
Article 293 of the 1992 constitution (chapter 26)
Where a person alleges that the state has committed an offence against him he may sue the state for all offences relating to torts or contract and civil cases and that the Attorney General may be sued in case any action is brought against the state. The right to commence this action against the state will not be like where the British had to issue the FIAT JUSTITIA before the application may be heard. Thus the monarch was not liable to proceedings. Here the FIAT is not required and the state will be treated as If it was a private individual capable.
The attorney general must be given 3 months notice before the case is sent to court. Here the state is responsible for instituting offences for which its employees or agents commits in the performance of their functions. The state is not liable for any offence committed in the performance of its judicial function.
Article 88 of the 1992 constitution
The attorney general must be sued in all cases against the state and not the president since his office must be respected. He institutes all criminal cases and he must also be responsible for performing all cases of civil nature of the state. He must have audience in court and must be notified in all cases against the state three months before the initiation of the case to court. As in Article 135 the Supreme Court has the power to determine whether a document should be produced or not in court.
The public officers act 1964 Act 114
All officers of the state will not be liable for money they have agreed to pay in the performance of their functions. An action against him will not be commenced unless he is notified three months before the initiation of the case. He may be removed from office by the president when he sees it necessary to do so.
The state proceedings act, 1998 Act 555
Nothing done or omitted to be done by a member of the armed force in the performance of his duty shall be liable against the state where he kills another member of the armed forces.
As provided in the cases below
TSIBOE V KUMASI METROPOLITAN ASSEMBLY….the plaintiff was competent by instituting the case within 12 months and not the repealed three months.
KONADY V ATTORNEY GENERAL…the case was one against the republic and not an officer and so the immunity case to be instituted within three months does not come in here as found in the public officers act.
MOULD V DE VINE…mandamus do not lie against the state but the reconnection of the water pipes to the house was mandated against the public officer and not the state and will therefore lie against it.
QHARSHIE IDAN & ANOR V AKUFFO ADDO & ANOR…Injunction will not lie against the republic since the defendants were legal official acting in their capacity as public officers their decision holds of a lawyer to be denied audience if not with a solicitors license.
The State v Otchere, where the defendants (3) were charged with the offence of treason by conniving to overthrow the government of Ghana which the first two defendants have proved guilty and have been convicted and Obetsebi Lamptey, the third defendant released by the court for not guilty, and there was the perception by the court that the influence of the colonial system of the judiciary has influenced the laws of this country making most of our laws emanating from that of the English law. Thus per the case, it was held that the law of conspiracy as embodied in the Ghana courts act 1960 embodies the principles of the English law of conspiracy as enunciated in the courts decisions and has been applied by the courts of this country.