PrimeNewsGhana

National Cathedral: Supreme Court dismisses suit against Prez. Akufo-Addo

By Mutala Yakubu
National Cathedral
National Cathedral

The Supreme Court has dismissed a contempt application initiated by Jonathan Holm against President Akufo-Addo over plans to build a National Cathedral.

A seven-member panel chaired by Justice Jones Dotse while dismissing the application said the president is immune from both criminal and civil actions as stipulated by Article 57 (4 and 5).

The court described Mr Holm's application as incompetent and one that has no merit whatsoever.

READ ALSO: National Cathedral: Ghanaian sues Prez. Akufo-Addo over demolishing of gov't bungalows

Lawyer for Mr. Holm Bright Akwetey while moving the case said even though the constitution as per Article 57 stipulates that the President cannot be sued while in office , he can be sued when he is personally liable for crime.

According to him when the President deliberately commits a crime, he is amenable to legal action and therefore prayed the court to commit the President for contempt.

Dorothy Afriyie Ansah, a Chief State Attorney in the case who raised a preliminary objection said the President is immune from both criminal and civil actions as per article 57 (4 and 5) as a sitting President.

She argued that the President can be sued three years after leaving office. The Chief State Attorney, however, prayed for the application to be dismissed.

Background

Bright Akwetey was seeking to flaw President Akufo-Addo, at the Supreme Court, over his decision to build a national cathedral to fulfill a private pledge. He argued that the use of the state land to build a National Cathedral is unconstitutional because it does not serve any “public

Mr Akwetey, who is lawyer for Jonathan Holm, said that the decision by the President to take with force state land to fulfill a personal promise he made to God, offends the various Constitutions dating back to 1967.

Mr Akwetey argued that per the Constitutions 1967, 1979 and 1992, what the President is seeking to use the land for, is not in the interest of the public, as stated by the documents.

The plaintiff’s argument is captured in Article 20 (5) and (6) which state that “Any property compulsorily taken possession of or acquired in the public interest or for a public propose shall be used only in the public interest or for the public purpose for which it was acquired.

READ ALSO: National Cathedral : Construction work to begin in March 2020

Where the property is not used in the public interest or for the purpose for which it was acquired, the owner of the property immediately before the compulsory acquisition, shall be given the first option for acquiring the property and shall, on such re-acquisition refund the whole or part of the compensation paid to him as provided for by law or such other amount as is commensurate with the value of the property at the time of the re-acquisition”.