Supreme Court’s Ruling Affirms My Argument That Minority’s Application Was Factually Uncertain – Godfred Dame

Attorney-General, Godfred Yeboah Dame has said the dismissal of the interlocutory injunction on the e-levy filed by the three Minority Members of Parliament has affirmed his argument that the writ was factually uncertain.

According to him, the arguments from the applicants were a bundle of conjecture which could not demonstrate any irregularity in the passage of the e-levy and warrant a grant of their plea.


He took a jab at the Minority for going to court without evidence.

“…You do not go to court with speculation and conjecture, you go to court on firm evidence….The applicants were unable to demonstrate any form of irregularity…” he noted.

He said “…I’m fully satisfied with the court’s ruling. I’m content with the outcome and I’m happy that the observation that we made about the application has been affirmed by the court. It is very important to note that the court made a finding that, really, nothing irregular has been demonstrated by the applicant and so far as the proceedings in Parliament in question were concerned, everything seemed regular and we have demonstrated the same from the processes that we had filed.”


Meanwhile, the Minority Leader in Parliament, Haruna Iddrisu has described the Supreme Court’s order to the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) to preserve e-levy records pending the determination of the substantive case, as “refreshing and heartwarming.”

The apex court ordered the GRA to keep accurate records of all e-levy deductions to enable a refund to payees if it is later determined that the law was passed unconstitutionally.

The Supreme Court is yet to hear the writ that was filed on March 30, 2022, where the three members of the Minority namely; the Minority Leader, Haruna Iddrisu, Bawku Central MP, Mahama Ayariga and North Tongu MP, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa filed a writ at the Supreme Court seeking to declare the passage of the E-Levy Act, 2022 (Act 1075) as unconstitutional and should be set aside.

They are invoking the original jurisdiction of the court pursuant to Articles 2 (1) and 130 (1) of the constitution and rules 45 (1) and (2) of the Supreme Court rules (1996) C.I. 16.

They are among other reliefs, seeking a further declaration that “the purported vote by the 136 Members of Parliament on each clause of the Electronic Transfer Bill, 2021 is in contravention of Article 104(1) and therefore null, void and of no effect whatsoever”.


How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 0 / 5. Vote count: 0

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.


Shadow a.k. Thomas Evans Selah-Ahegbebu is an avid writer of entertainment and life style stories. I love to meet and learn new ways of doing things. Topics of interest are; Medicine, Entertainment & Life Style

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button