Atuguba’s stances on the Gitmo 2 discerning - Lawyer

A private legal practitioner Abraham Amaliba, says Justice William Atuguba’s judgment in the case of the two ex-Guantanamo Bay detainees who were brought into Ghana in January 2016, is very enlightening and must be taken into consideration. 

According to Amaliba, Justice Atuguba, in giving a diverging  judgement in the 6-1 ruling by the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the decision to accommodate the Gitmo two in Ghana without recourse to parliament, indicated the President was empowered to take such unilateral action.

Margaret Bamful and Henry Nana Boakye, the two plaintiff sued the Attorney General and Minister of Justice as well as the Minister of the Interior in 2016, accusing government of illegally admitting the two former Gitmo detainees without recourse to the Constitution of Ghana.

However, speaking on TV3’s New Day  Mr Amaliba said: “Once the Supreme Court has spoken with a 6 to 1 decision, we cannot but agree that that is the position of the law as at today going forward.

“But we cannot just leave it to that way. I have had the opportunity of listening to the dissenting view of Justice Atuguba and for me it is insightful. He sought to distinguish between Article 75 and 83, 84."

Abraham Amaliba continued that, the Attorney General has fervently indicated that the framers of the constitution in Article 75 did not consider this type of arrangement [Gitmo 2 saga] to be part of those that should seek parliamentary approval. 

He added that Justice Atuguba in his diverging ruling sought to say that in most jurisdictions the president is given or has some presidential directive powers and does not need to seek parliamentary approval all the time.

In tandem with the Justice's decision, Abraham Amaliba said a  day is coming Ghana may have to resort to Justice Atuguba's dissenting opinion to get things right done.