A: Introduction

That the savings appetite among Ghanaians is low is a known fact. In Ghana, the impounding of people’s property and assets during military regimes and the recent banking sector clean-up, which led to a vast majority of people losing their savings, has a significant impact on savings culture. Households and firms view conventional bank accounts as unsafe and hold savings in less conventional places.[1] Before finding a solution to the poor savings culture, a third factor has been thrown into the fray to worsen the situation.

It is the so-called debt exchange programme regarding Government- issued local currency bonds which the Government announced in December, 2022. This articles looks at the strenuous efforts being made by Government to coax individuals and institutions to sign on to the programme. Most significantly, the article discusses the sovereign immunity clause in the debt exchange document that seeks to limit bondholders’ ability to execute any judgment against the State[2] in case they opt out of the debt exchange programme and sue for their money.

The article concludes that, by taking such a position intended to limit bondholders’ ability to recover their money, the State is only stroking its underarms and giggling. The State shed its sovereign immunity and entered the marketplace, borrowed money and did business just like any individual or institution. And now that it is time to fulfil its part of the contract, the State proposes to put on its sovereign immunity garb to escape from its accrued responsibility towards its bondholders. One cannot think of a worse case of fraud and an affront to public policy. 

B: Background to the Government’s debt exchange programme

We were around, being bitten by a super inflationary rise in fuel prices - the prime mover of all other inflationary pressures. For those of us not well-versed in the fine intricacies of macro-economic doublespeak, the daily increase in prices of goods and services became our econo-barometer for measuring the decreasing worth of the money in our purses and pockets.

Whiles trying to figure out what was happening in our economy that has been targeting single-digit inflation since I was in nappies, a new expression came to town: No haircut. When I first heard it from the 1st Gentleman of the land, I felt relieved. Why? Because, though it sounded comical coming from a bald fellow, it gave respite to many a confused soul. Whatever it meant.

But then the Finance Ministry came out with the 2023 budget and the Minister announced that there will be a haircut. Then hell broke loose. Out came all manner of hitherto unheard of experts, doctors, professors, financial consultants, and spent think-thankers. They spoke of how broke Ghana was and how citizens were going to lose their lifetime savings and investments. It is to their eternal credit that their discussions woke the entire citizenry up to the reality of the day.

Simply put, as the experts explained, the haircut meant that the Government was going to cream off part of citizens savings and investments to pay off Government’s debts. Most of us thought that explanation was a figment of political detractors’ imagination. As it happened, it was real. So, just like the ‘we won’t go to the IMF’ - ‘we have gone to the IMF’ song, ‘there will be no haircut’- ‘there will be a haircut’ also entered the hymnal to be used in the National Cathedral.

The Ministry of Finance then announced that citizens who have lived lives of poverty like the parson in Geoffrey Chaucer’s “The Canterbury Tales” must give their lifetime investments to Government. We were cajoled to bring our benevolent and patriotic selves to the fore by signing on to a “debt exchange programme.” Ordinarily, one will expect that if there is a contract between two parties and there is the need for a change in the terms, the parties must meet and discuss. And agree on what each party wants. And then make an exchange of one thing for another.

But in our peculiar “exchange,” it is Ministry of Finance that sat down and unilaterally decided that, no principal and interest will be paid on all investments in Government bonds in 2023. Again, persons who have bonds maturing in 2023 will happily receive 2% of their investment as “cash tender fee” - basically, a balm to soothe their raw wounds – if they sign on to the debt exchange programme. In ordinary mathematics, if, for example, you have Government bonds worth GH₵10,000 maturing in 2023, the Government will magnanimously pay you GH₵200 to take care of yourself and your family in the years 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026. Never mind that the interest payment on the amount of GH₵10,000 at the agreed rate of 20.75% a year will yield GH₵2,075 in 2023 alone.

Furthermore, by the terms of Government’s debt exchange programme, those who own bonds that are maturing in 2023 will receive their money in tranches of 15% and 14% a year over a period of seven years – starting from 2027 and ending in 2033.

Now, for bonds maturing from 2024, bondholders will be paid in single digits of 9% and 8%. And mark this: The single digit payments will only start from 2027 and end in 2038.[3] Thus, the Government will pay the bondholders their money due in 2024 (and beyond) over a period of 12 years.[4] Consequently, every bondholder who happens to live long enough to see the completion of our “Holy Sepulchre” can only hope to go and make supplications to the Lord in the Biblical Gardens.

With regards to interest that will be paid on the new bonds, interest on each new bond will start accruing at 5% from 2024. It will be increased every year at various rates. Thus, bondholders will not enjoy the interest rates they were given at the time they bought their bonds.

C: Why is Ghana bankrupt and pulling citizens along?

From government officials’ narratives and ‘experts’ media analyses, Ghana is unable to pay its debts because we have borrowed too much. And we don’t have the money to repay our debts. The International Monetary Fund ( the ‘IMF’), - the capitalists’ tool for developing countries’ eternal misery that we love to hate in peace times and hate to love in crises period - is here again. What Ghana needs from the IMF is US$3 billion. The conditions set by the IMF include the requirement that Ghana must lower her debt to GDP ratio. Seeing that she has borrowed herself into penury, and has no appetite to change its ostentatious lifestyle, Government decided to take the line of least resistance: we won’t pay our debts to bondholders. Simple and sweet. 

But how did we get here? It will be recalled that Ghana issued her first Eurobond sometime in 2007. The late Mr. Baah Wiredu, as then Finance Minister, would not let us rest. He did massive public education on the bonds. He told us what the Government intended to do with the borrowed money, the interest rate, the duration for repayment, etc. Between 2009 and 2016, if my memory serves me, there were two such bonds issued. Again, there were discussions in the periods leading up to the issuance of the bonds. The discussions were mainly led by Mr. Seth Terkper, as Deputy Minister and later, Minister of Finance.

Come 2017 and beyond. Floating Eurobonds and local Government Cedi bonds became almost as rampant as issuing local treasury bills. Just like treasury bills, Government did not feel itself obligated to explain the purpose for the incessant borrowing. Not much discussions preceded or accompanied the issuances. We were borrowing billions of cedis and dollars at humungous interest rates. Some concerned citizens complained and they were rebuffed. Some citizens petitioned CHRAJ to intervene.[5] They got no head way. Some even went to the Supreme Court and they were thrown out.[6]

It appears most of the cases the courts have dismissed have come back to haunt us. Take Ayine v Attorney-General.[7] In that case, the Supreme Court was able to propound a theory that posited that, centenarians and other dinosauric creatures can be appointed by Government as “public officers.” Mr. Amidu, then aged 67 years, went back to serve his country as a public officer. But later events showed that, both Mr. Amidu and the Government would have been better off if the Supreme Court had dissolved their special prosecutorial matrimony when the opportunity presented itself. Again, if we had paid optimum attention to the main issue of government borrowing in Dynamic Youth Movement of Ghana & Another v Ken Ofori-Atta & 2 Others,[8] perhaps we would have been having a different conversation today.

D: Government cannot hide behind sovereign immunity to escape execution

The Government’s unilateral change in the contract terms of its bondholders, called ‘exchange,’ has taken euphemism to an extreme as it is. But far worse is the Ministry of Finance’s veiled threat that those who do not voluntarily agree to give their investments in Government bonds to Government will not be able to execute any judgment against the Republic of Ghana. According to the Ministry, Government will exercise its sovereign immunity over certain classes of its assets against execution.[9] So, any bondholder who refuses to sign onto the debt exchange programme and sues to recover their money cannot seize any property of our embassies abroad to pay the judgment debt. Secondly, the bondholder cannot seize any assets belonging to Ghana’s military or defence forces to satisfy a judgment debt. Thirdly, a bondholder cannot attach ministries and other government properties in execution of a judgment. But government assets that are for commercial use can be attached to satisfy a judgment debt against the Government, according to the debt exchange document. The fourth point is that, money in the Government’s Petroleum Fund cannot be attached to satisfy any judgment that may be given in favour of a bondholder.

At first glance, many bondholders, especially individual bondholders, may panic into believing that, those who do not sign on to the debt exchange programme will have no recourse for relief. It appears the Government can, and will use its sovereign immunity, to run away from paying bondholders who opt out of the beleaguered debt exchange programme. That is not the case. Bondholders who refuse to take part in the debt exchange programme can sue and execute their judgment against the Government as will be demonstrated shortly. 

Foreign bondholders unfazed by claims to sovereign immunity

To all intents and purposes, it is foreign bondholders/investors who are likely to fall on the assets of a) Ghana’s embassies and missions abroad and b) Ghana’s military assets abroad. So, well, Government may try its luck in invoking its sovereign immunity against attachment of such assets with regards to its foreign investors who may sue Ghana abroad.[10] It will be interesting to see how foreign courts will treat Ghana’s claim to sovereign immunity against execution of judgment obtained for breach of contract.

We heard of Ghana’s ‘roadshows’ abroad to garner investor interest in Government’s bonds and other investments. It is doubtful whether Ghana warned potential investors that, though it had shed off its sovereign shackles and descended into the arena of commerce, it will sport the sovereign immunity garb again when the price was right. We can only wish the national legal team well in their future defence endeavours in foreign courts.

As regards Government’s military assets, we may sit pretty, secure in the knowledge that no foreigner will enter Ghana and seize Burma Camp and put it up for auction sale. Even so, the Government has a big lesson to learn from the ARA Libertad[11] case. This is a case about an Argentinian Government military ship that was arrested sometime in 2012 when it made a brief stopover in Tema. The ship was arrested by an order that was obtained by the judgment creditor from the High Court, Accra, in execution of a judgment debt that the Government of Argentina had failed to pay. The case was about government bonds Argentina issued and refused to pay the bondholders! The facts of the case are that, in 1994, the Republic of Argentina (simply called ‘Argentina’) entered into an agreement with a US company to issue bonds for sale to the public. A company called NML Capital bought some of the bonds issued by Argentina. Argentina could not pay when the bonds matured so NML Capital sued Argentina in New York and got judgment. Argentina did not pay the judgment debt.  

In 2005, NMC Capital sued Argentina on the judgment debt in the High Court in England. Argentina complained that the English High Court did not have jurisdiction over the case since Argentina had state (sovereign) immunity. The issue went before the English Supreme Court which held that, Argentina did not enjoy state immunity in relation to the case and the English High Courts had jurisdiction. Argentina had no escape route so she submitted to judgment and a consent order was made against her in favour of NMC Capital. Still, Argentina did not pay the judgment debt. So, when Argentina’s military ship called ‘ARA Libertad’ entered Tema Harbour in October, 2012, NMC Capital caused it to be arrested by a order from the High Court, Accra.  

That was not the end. When the Government of Argentina heard of the arrest of its military ship in Ghana, Argentina instructed their lawyers to get the ship released. In the meantime, the ship arrest set in motion a diplomatic uproar. The Accra High Court Judge was adamant. He dismissed the application to release the ship. Argentina was livid and dragged Ghana before the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and immediately applied for provisional orders. The Tribunal gave its ruling on the provisional measures and ordered Ghana to release the detained ship unconditionally and immediately, and to ensure that it was resupplied to enable the ship to sail out of Ghana’s maritime waters.[12]

The Attorney-General hurried to the Supreme Court for an order to quash the High Court Judge’s ruling. The Supreme Court did not waste any time in quashing it. In the meantime, the ship had already sailed away from Tema by the time the Supreme Court ordered its release.

It is interesting to observe that, Argentina’s woes in the ARA Libertad case started from its decision not to pay its bondholders, including NMC Capital. It is worth noting how the English Courts ignored Argentina’s plea of state immunity and went ahead to hear the case and entered judgment against Argentina. If Argentina, a much bigger player in international affairs, will be rebuffed in her claim to state immunity in foreign courts, one can only imagine the length Ghana’s foreign bondholders will go to rubbish Ghana’s claim to sovereign immunity and claim their moneys. At any rate, the global humiliation Argentina suffered when the arrest of the ARA Libertad ship hit international headlines was huge. Ghana must brace itself up for worse.

Local bondholders can sue and execute judgments against Government

Now, when it comes to local investors (individuals and companies), under the debt exchange programme, a bondholder judgment creditor may a) only seize government’s commercial assets, not ministries and other government properties and b) money in the Government’s Petroleum Fund cannot be attached to satisfy any bondholder’s judgment debt.

It is submitted that, the Ministry of Finance’s statement that those investors who decide not to sign on to the debt exchange programme may not be able to execute any judgment against the Government in respect of ministerial/governmental assets and the Petroleum Fund is deceptive at best, and a plain lie at worst. Those provisions in the debt exchange document show a craving for colonial era-inspired laws that put the State on a legal pedestal, thereby making suing and executing judgments against the State almost an impossible task. Ghanaian law has long moved away from that era.

Executing judgments against the State/Government

A little historical background to how parties execute judgments against State property will help here. Before the birth of the 1992 Constitution, there were certain institutions and entities that were immune from the courts’ execution processes. Thus, the normal execution processes of the courts that litigants used in enforcing judgment debts were not available to be used for enforcing judgments against such institutions.

Those institutions and entities had a number of laws regulating how a party who obtained judgment against them must enforce those judgments against their properties. They were simply ‘untouchable’ for purposes of executing court judgments. Examples of those laws and institutions were the State Proceedings Act,^[13] (on State property) the Chieftaincy Act^[14] (on stool property) and the Statutory Corporations Act^[15] (on State corporations’ properties).

With the coming into force of the Constitution,^[16] a new wind started blowing. The Constitution provides that all persons are equal before the law. Therefore, the Constitution has, for example, abolished the requirement for a person to obtain the Attorney-General’s fiat before suing the Government.      The Constitution provides that where a person has a claim against the Government, that claim can be enforced as of right by suing the Government for that purpose without the grant of the Attorney-General’s fiat.^[17] Consequently, in 1998, Parliament passed the State Proceedings Act^[18] to bring the law in line with the constitutional provisions.

Section 8 of the law (Act 555) provides that the Government can sue or be sued in civil proceedings in court under the same Rules of Court that apply to cases between private individuals and companies. The Government is also liable under contract law and can be sued for breach of contract in the same way as a private person of full age and capacity.[19] That means the Government can be sued in court just like any other person. The only exceptional requirement is that, the Attorney-General must be given 30 days’ notice of the intended action before the writ is filed. But even if the person who sues the Government forgets to give the 30 days’ notice, the case will not be invalid. The law gives a court the power to adjourn the case for the person to serve the notice on the Attorney- General.

Most significant for our present discussion, the law also states that, a judgment given against the Government can be enforced or executed in the same way as a judgment given against any person. In Republic v High Court, Accra (Fast Track Division); Ex parte Attorney-General (Maud Nongo Interested Party),^[20] the Supreme Court gave judicial blessing to Article 293 (1) of the Constitution and held that, “the State or the Republic should be subject to the execution of its funds since article 293 did not provide for any legal impediment or defence, different from that available against private persons, to any claim by any legal person against the State or Republic.” (My emphasis). With this clear and bold declaration by the apex Court, one wonders how the provision in the Petroleum Revenue Management Act[21] that shields the Petroleum Fund from attachment in execution of a judgment debt against the Government can stand up to constitutional and judicial scrutiny.

In the premises, if the Government entered into contracts with investors by way of bonds, and the Government fails to pay the bonds and the agreed interest as and when they fall due, investors have the legal right to sue the Government. In fact, Government has lost many cases in court and has been ordered by the courts to pay damages for breach of contract.[22] Consequently, if bondholders (individuals or companies) decide not to take part in the debt exchange programme and the Government refuses to pay their bonds, they can sue the Government to recover their money and go into execution by seizing and selling Government property, among other available execution processes under the Rules of Court.[23]

As at now, the deadline for the debt exchange programme has been extended three times already. Considering what’s on the horizon, a further extension may be in the works.

E: Extension, extension, extension

And talking about extensions, in a recent copy of the Supreme Court’s Cause List, the Ex parte Opuni case [24] was listed for hearing. The proceedings was in respect of Dr. Opuni’s recent application challenging the continuous handling of his case by Mr. Justice Honyenuga, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court, sitting as an additional High Court Judge. As will be recalled, the Chief Justice gave Mr. Justice Honyenuga a 6- month extension after the latter clocked 70 years, the compulsory age of retirement of a Justice of the Supreme Court. This extension was made in September, 2022. By the pending application at the Supreme Court and further possible interlocutory interregnum, one wonders what will happen if the 6-month extension period expires and the case is not concluded.

I have had occasion to share some thoughts on this subject.[25] That discussion was on the ‘additional judge’ concept generally. There, I made reference to the Ex parte Daniel case.[26] In that case, the late Mr. Justice Afreh sat as an additional High Court Judge after he had attained the age of 70 years and he had been given a 6-month contract extension to finish hearing the High Court case. The applicant seriously challenged Mr. Justice Afreh’s jurisdiction after the latter reached the statutory retiring age of 70 years. The applicant lost the case. There were avoidable bruises elsewhere.

In the light of the challenges retired Justices who gain extension of tenure to sit on pending trial cases face, it is most intriguing to gather that, such extension after retirement is becoming fashionable. It has even been suggested that, though most Justices are happy to take a bow and go home and rest, others literally beg to enjoy 6 more months of the bows (pun intended) before retiring.

As may very well be argued that, the Constitution sanctions the 6-month extension by a Chief Justice for retiring Supreme Court Justices – a position that is currently under litigation before the Supreme Court. But it submitted that, such extensions must not be made as a matter of course. It must be made sparingly and in obvious cases where it is absolutely necessary. Considering that there is no shortage of Supreme Court Justices (as there is no upper limit to their number), proper assignment of cases will ensure that Justices who are on the verge of retirement are given, for instance, single Justice case assignments to hear motions and other interlocutory applications. So that, by their birthdate of retirement, they are free to go.

The Supreme Court under the 1992 Constitution has had its fair share of forks in the road. In recent times, allegations have been rife in judico-legal circles about some soon-to-retire Justices who have lined up to plead for 6-months extension of their tenure of office. The mill has it that, unlike Messrs. Justice Afreh and Justice Honyenuga who got extensions to continue handling cases as “additional High Court judges,” some of the alleged neo-applicants have no such “additional” trial court duties. But they still don’t want to go home and rest, as the majority of their predecessors have done. Will they sit as ‘additional Supreme Court Justices’ and ‘conclude’ their part-heard Supreme Court cases? Will they now be given fresh ‘additional High Court Judge’ duties in retirement? Hopefully, the prospect will remain a fanciful story in the mill.

F: Conclusion

The Government has driven the nation into debthood. The Government has a bounden duty to take the nation out of it. There are a plethora of actions the Government can take to ensure its debt burden is ‘sustainable,’ in economic jargon. The Government went to the IMF. The Government must find ‘sustainable’ ways to meet IMF’s notorious killer conditionalities. What the Government must not do, is to present a ‘voluntary-by- force’ debt exchange programme to bondholders and brow beat them to accept it or kiss their moneys goodbye. Countries such as Argentina that adopted such “ye ntua”[27] tactics to dodge paying its bondholders are still facing relentless judgment creditors around the world.

            No bondholder must be pressured or stampeded into signing on to the debt exchange programme for fear of not being able sue and execute a judgment against the Government if the Government fails to pay back the bondholder’s money when the bonds mature and fall due. The Government can be sued on the bonds and successful bondholders will be able to execute their judgments against the Government in the same way as a private person.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Charles Ackah, Monica P. Lambon-Quayefio “Confronting low domestic savings in Africa” available at: https://isser.ug.edu.gh/confronting-low-domestic-savings-africa (assessed on 27^th January, 2023)

[2] ‘Government’ and ‘State’ are used interchangeably to refer to the Republic of Ghana

[3] For the full terms of the debt exchange programme, see: “Amended and Restated Exchange Memorandum” issued by Ministry of Finance and dated 30^th December, 2022

[4] Under section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1972 (NRCD 54), the time limited for suing another person for breach of contract is 6 years. It is most intriguing, therefore, that Government of Ghana could put together a debt exchange arrangement that will effectively tie bondholders’ hands for 12 years, whiles putting yearly droplets of 8% or 9% of their investments on their tongues to keep them alive

[5] One Yaw Brogya Genfi complained to CHRAJ to investigate the Minister of Finance, Mr. Ken Ofori-Atta in an alleged conflict of interest situation in the issuance of 7-year and 15-year bonds by the Government for a total amount of US$2.25 billion at 19.75% interest rate in 2017. The complainant questioned why 95% of the bonds were purchased by one single investor, Franklin Templeton Investment whose director, one Trevor G. Trefgarne, is also described as chairman of Enterprise Group Limited, a company partially owned by Data Bank Limited, a company 1st defendant is known to have significant interest. The complainant, thus, raised issues of conflict of interest against Mr. Ofori-Atta. CHRAJ concluded that, the allegations by Brogya Genfi that Mr. Ofori – Atta has contravened Article 284 of the 1992 Constitution by putting himself in a conflict of interest situation in relation to the issuance of the bonds had not been substantiated.

[6] Dynamic Youth Movement of Ghana & Another v Ken Ofori-Atta & 2 Others Writ No. J1/04/2018 judgment dated 5^th May, 2020, SC (Coram: Yeboah, CJ, Dotse, Baffoe-Bonnie, Appau, Pwamang, Amegatcher, Kotey, JSC). The issues raised by the plaintiffs in this case concerned their displeasure with CHRAJ’s decision in Mr. Brogya Genfi’s complaint against Mr. Ken Ofori-Atta as discussed in the previous footnote. The plaintiff lost the case. The unanimous decision was given by Amegatcher, JSC

[7] Writ No. J1/05/2018 judgment dated 13^th May, 2020, SC (Coram: Yeboah, CJ, Baffoe-Bonnie, Marful-Sau, Amegatcher and Kotey, JJSC (concurring) Agnes Dordzie and Gbadegbe, JJSC (dissenting). The plaintiff lost the case by a 5-2 majority decision. The majority decision was given by Amegatcher, JSC. The minority opinion was delivered by Agnes Dordzie, JSC

[8] See: Footnote 4 above

[9] The assets the Government intends to exempt from execution under sovereign immunity principles are ”(a) property or assets used by a diplomatic or consular mission, (b) property or assets of a military character and under the control of a military authority or defence agency or (c) property, assets or infrastructure located in the Republic and dedicated to a public or governmental use (as distinct from property dedicated to a commercial use)  or (d) assets protected under the Petroleum Revenue Management Act, 2011 (Act 815):” See page 18 of the “Amended and Restated Exchange Memorandum.” Section 41 (3) of Act 815 states that a court shall not make an order for the attachment of moneys in the Petroleum Funds. Section 17 (3) (c) of the State Proceedings Act, 1998 (Act 555) states that  a Court shall not make an order to attach money which, by an enactment, (such as Act 815) is prohibited or restricted from attachment or the execution of a debt

[10] After all, Ghana is a signatory to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

[11] The full case title is Republic v High Court (Commercial Division) Accra, Ex parte Attorney General (NML Capital & Republic of Argentina-Interested Parties) [2013-2014] SCGLR 990

[12] https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/press_releases_english/PR_188_E.pdf (Accessed on 29th January, 2023)

[13] 1961, Act 151, Section 15 (4) provided thus: “save as aforesaid no execution or attachment or process in the nature thereof shall be issued out of any court for enforcing payment by the Republic of any such money or costs as aforesaid and no person shall be individually liable under any order for the payment by the Republic or any department or servant of the Republic of any such money or costs.”

[14] 1971, Act 370, Section 38 stated as follows: “No stool property whether movable or immovable shall be seized in execution at the suit of any person except with written consent of the Minister.”

[15] 1972, NRCD 120, provided that, “No execution or attachment or process in the nature thereof shall be issued against any statutory corporation without the fiat of the Attorney-General.”

[16] On 7^th January, 1993

[17] See Articles 17 (1): “All persons shall be equal before the law” and 293 (1): ” Where a person has a claim against the Government, that claim may be enforced as of right by proceedings taken against the Government for that purpose without the grant of a fiat or the use of the process known as petition of right.”

[18] 1998 (Act 555)

[19] See: Section 2 of the State Proceedings Act,1998 (Act 555)

[20] [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR 70; dictum of Date-Bah, JSC in holding 1. See also: Republic v High Court, Accra (Land Division), Accra; Ex parte Attorney-General (Sweaters and Socks Ltd & Beany Interested Parties) [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR 352

[21] 2011 (Act 815). See: Section 41 (3)

[22] Typical examples are Republic v High Court, Accra (Land Division), Accra; Ex parte Attorney-General (Sweaters and Socks Ltd & Beany Interested Parties) [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR 352 and Republic v High Court, Accra (Fast Track Division); Ex parte Attorney-General (Maud Nongo Interested Party) [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR 70

[23] See: Orders 43 – 50 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47)

[24] Republic v High Court, Criminal Division, Accra; Ex parte Stephen Kwabena Opuni & Another Civil Motion No. JS/87/2023

[25] Francisca Serwaa Boateng, “Perspectives” (2022) Chapter 22 pg. 159 article titled “The additional judge concept revisited”

[26] Republic v Fast Track Court, Accra; Ex parte Daniel [2003-2004] SCGLR 364

[27] A Twi phrase meaning, “we won’t pay”