Supreme Court of Ghana Rules Payment of Salaries to Presidential Spouses Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court of Ghana has ruled that the payment of salaries and allowances to the spouses of the President and Vice-President from the Consolidated Fund is unconstitutional. In a unanimous decision delivered on April 24, 2024, the seven-member panel led by Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo held that the positions of the First and Second Ladies do not fall under the category of public office holders as defined in Article 71 of the 1992 Constitution.

The court's ruling came in response to two separate lawsuits filed by the Bono Regional Chairman of the governing New Patriotic Party (NPP), Kwame Baffoe alias Abronye D., and the South Dayi Member of Parliament, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor. The suits challenged the recommendations made by the Prof. Yaa Ntiamoa-Baidu Committee on emoluments for Article 71 office holders, which had been approved by the 7th Parliament, to pay wages and emoluments to the First and Second Ladies.

The Supreme Court granted three out of four reliefs sought by Baffoe, declaring that the approval by Parliament to pay salaries to the First and Second Ladies is inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore null, void, and unenforceable. The court also upheld that the Emolument Committee's recommendations are limited to only public office holders under Article 71.

However, the court dismissed Baffoe's request for a declaration that Parliament cannot, on its own accord, initiate or approve payment of such emoluments without a bill introduced by the government and passed into law. In the related case filed by Dafeamakpor and two others, the court granted only one out of seven reliefs sought, affirming that the spouses of the President and Vice-President are not Article 71 office holders for the purposes of receiving wages and emoluments.

Why this matters: The Supreme Court's ruling has significant implications for the use of public funds and the scope of presidential privileges in Ghana. It upholds the principle of separation of powers and ensures that the payment of salaries and allowances from the Consolidated Fund adheres to the provisions of the Constitution. The decision also highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in the management of state resources.

The Attorney General's office had opposed the lawsuits, arguing that Parliament's adoption of the Prof. Yaa Ntiamoa-Baidu Committee's recommendations was not unlawful. However, the Supreme Court's unanimous judgment has settled the matter, declaring the payment of salaries to the First and Second Ladies from the Consolidated Fund as unconstitutional. The ruling serves as a reminder that the positions of presidential spouses do not equate to public office holders as defined by the Constitution, and any remuneration or privileges granted to them must align with the law.

Key Takeaways

• Ghana's Supreme Court ruled payment of salaries to President/VP spouses unconstitutional.
• The court held that the First and Second Ladies are not public office holders per Constitution.
• The court granted 3 out of 4 reliefs sought, declaring the salary approval null and void.
• The ruling upholds separation of powers and accountability in use of public funds.
• The Attorney General's office had opposed the lawsuits, but the court's unanimous judgment settled the matter.