An action may be criminal or civil in nature. The 9 Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary defines “criminal action” as “An action instituted by the government to punish offenses against the public”. By the combined effect of Article 19 clauses 7, 11 and 12 of the 1992 Constitution, a criminal action (or a quasi -criminal action, such as contempt proceedings) is one that results in either conviction or acquittal. Accordingly, any action that does not result in either conviction or acquittal is civil in nature. THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, FINANCIAL DIVISION EX PARTE NICHOLAS ANAMON AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT, ACCRA] CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/68/2017. 24 OCTOBER, 2018
Administrative bodies and administrative officials shall act fairly and reasonably and comply with the requirements imposed on them by law and persons aggrieved by the exercise of such acts and decisions shall have the right to seek redress before a court or other tribunal. Article 23 of our 1992 Constitution
In this Constitution and in any other law, the power to appoint a person to hold or to act in an office in the public service shall include the power to confirm appointments, to exercise disciplinary control over persons holding 01′ acting in any such office and to remove those persons from office; Article 297(a) of our 1992 Constitution.
The Police Council may, with the prior approval of the President, by constitutional instrument, make Regulations for the performance of its functions under this Constitution or any other law and for the effective and efficient administration of the Police Service. Regulations made under this article shall include regulations in respect of; the conditions of service including these relating to the enrolment, salaries, pensions, gratuities and other allowances of officers and men; and the delegation to other persons of powers to discipline persons and the conditions subject to which delegations may be made. Article 203(2) of our 1992 Constitution
Where in this Constitution or in any other law discretionary power is vested in any person or authority, (a) that discretionary power shall be deemed to imply a duty to be fair and candid; (b) the exercise of the discretionary power shall not be arbitrary, capricious or biased either by resentment, prejudice or personal dislike and shall be in accordance with due process of law; and (C) where the person or authority is not a Justice or other judicial officer, there shall be published by constitutional instrument or statutory instrument, Regulations that are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution or that other law to govern the exercise of the discretionary power. Article 296 of our 1992 Constitution
Nothing in, or done under the authority of, any law shall be held to be inconsistent with, or in contravention of, the following provisions0: (b) clause (7) of this article[No person who shows that he has been tried by a competent court for a criminal offence and either convicted or acquitted, shall again be tried for that offence or for any other criminal offence of which he could have been convicted at the trial for the offence, except on the order of a superior court in the course of appeal or review proceedings relating to the conviction or acquittal], to the extent that the law in question authorises a court to try a member of a disciplined force for a Criminal offence notwithstanding any trial and conviction or acquittal of that member under the disciplinary law of the force, except that any court which tries that member and convicts him shall, in sentencing him to any punishment, take into account any punishment imposed on him under that disciplinary law. Article 19(16) of our 1992 Constitution
Another point which eluded the Court of Appeal was article 23 of the 1992 Constitution which states thus; “Administrative bodies and administrative officials shall act fairly and reasonably and comply with the requirements imposed on them by law and persons aggrieved by the exercise of such acts and decisions shall have the right to seek redress before a court or other tribunal” Administrative bodies are generally controlled by resort to judicial review which in most cases afford speedy and less expensive mode of trial. The High Court [Civil Procedure] Rules CI 47 of 2004 has specifically spelt out the orders which a High Court may in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Order 55 rule 2(1) make. It states thus: “2(1) on hearing of an application for judicial review, the High Court may make any of the following orders as the circumstances may require: An order for prohibition, certiorari or mandamus; An order restraining a person from acting in any public office in which that person is not entitled to act; Any other injunction; Declaration; Payment of damages. It is clear from the reading of the rules that all the reliefs sought by the appellants could in appropriate cases be granted by a High Court in hearing an application for judicial review. It does appear that the new rules has widened the scope of orders which a High Court seised with jurisdiction for judicial review could make in appropriate case. What was sought to be quashed by certiorari was the decision which both courts held were given without hearing. In the case of REPUBLIC v COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO NUNGUA TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS; EX PARTE ODAI IV & OTHERS [1996-97] SCGLR 401 this court after examining the case law expanded the scope of certiorari and made it clear that “any fact finding tribunal or commission of inquiry, whether statutory or not, which has made any decision based on evidence, affecting rights of subjects would be “acting judiciary” and would thus be amenable to supervisory jurisdiction of the courts”. This court relied on the oft-quoted dictum of Lord Denning MR in RE PERGAMON PRESS LTD [1971] 1 CH 388 at 399 where the law was stated thus: “Seeing that their work and their report may lead to such consequences, I am clearly of the opinion that the inspectors must act fairly. This is a duty which rests on them as on other bodies even though they are not judicial or quasai-judicial but only administrative” FRANCIS OWUSU-MENSAH AND STEPHEN O. ADJAPONG vs. NATIONAL BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL & TECHNICAL EXAMINATIONS (NAPTEX), PROF. PAUL N. BUATSI AND MR. FRANCIS W.Y. TAGBOR [SUPREME COURT, ACCRA] DATE: 9 MAY, 2018