Public policy is one ground for excluding evidence even if it is relevant, similar to but not same as privilege as latter may be waived, disclosure of matters injurious to public or national interest raised suo moto by court even if no party raises, per Rogers v Home Secretary sources of police info judicially recognized class of evidence exclude on grounds of public policy unless production required to establish innocence in criminal trial, in public interest to protect informants.
Public policy matters include national security or state secrets s106, parliamentary proceedings, political matters and judge’s testimony, identity of informants s107, public policy affects illegality in two ways, first to contracts or agreements and 2nd to breaches and noncompliance with statutes, a person can’t found his action on illegality Latin ex trupi causa non oritur action or dolo malo non aritur action, a contract that breaches statute can’t be enforced per Addy v Irani action for debts arising from illegal sale of goods above controlled price and foreign money exchanged in black market dismissed.
Kwarteng v Donkor contract performance of which is destoolment charges levelled against another was illegal and unenforceable, Kessie v Charmant against public policy that person be hired for money or valuable consideration when he had access to persons of influence to use his position or interest to procure benefit.
Art 1(2) constitution supreme law and all contradictory laws are void per Tuffour v AG no person can make what the constitution says is unlawful lawful and vice versa.
Art 19(14) & (15) Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service national security is responsibility of executive and not the courts of justice as it is par excellence a non-justiciable question
Art 115 freedom of speech and debate and proceedings in parliament and shall not be impeached or questioned in court or outside parliament. Art 49 at any public election or referendum, voting shall be by secret ballot
Art 116-121 privileges and immunities to members and speaker of parliament,Art 113 chairman on superior courts, judge of CC, chairman of tribunal not liable for things done in performance of functions
Mensah v Ahenfie Cloth Sellers Association Gen rule is that court is duty bound to raise illegality even when parties fail to raise it,it doesn’t matter whether D didn’t have malicious intent because prior est condition defendentis, per Ama v CCW Ltd under CL where contract illegal benefits not recoverable, two main exceptions were when parties in pari delicto and where party to an executor contract repented before performance evidence quantum valeat