AG, Interior Ministry Sued Over Ex-Gitmo Detainees

Two people have sued the Attorney General and the Ministry of Interior over government’s decision to host two ex-detainees from Guantanamo Bay Camp.

The plaintiffs, Margaret Banful, a former staff at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Henry Nana Boakye filed the suit on Monday at the Supreme Court.

The two are praying the court among other things a declaration that the decision by government to host the two ex-detainees, Mahmud Umar Mohammad Bin Atef and Khalid Muhammad Salih Al-Dhuby, without consulting Parliament was unconstitutional in line with Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution.

They are also asking the court to declare as “unlawful” the reception and continuous stay of the two ex-detainees in Ghana.Article 75 states that (1) The President may execute or cause to be executed treaties, agreements or conventions in the name of Ghana.

(2) A treaty, agreement or convention executed by or under the authority of the President shall be subject to ratification by-

(a) Act of Parliament; or

(b) a resolution of Parliament supported by the votes of more than on-half of all the members of Parliament.

Below are the reliefs being sought by the plaintiffs

1. A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, the President of the Republic of Ghana, by agreeing to the transfer of Mahmud Umar Muhammad Bin Atef and Khalid Muhammad Salih Al-Dhuby (both former detainees of Gunatanamo Bay) to the Republic of Ghana, required the ratification by an Act of Parliament or a resolution of Parliament supported by the votes of more than one-half of all the members of Parliament.

2. A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, the President of the Republic of Ghana acted unconstitutionally in his failure to obtain the requisite ratification by an Act of Parliament or a resolution of Parliament supported by the votes of more than one-half of all the members of Parliament when he agreed with the Government of the United States of America to transfer Mahmud Umar Muhammad Bin Atef and Khalid Muhammad Salih Al-Dhuby to the Republic of Ghana.

3. A declaration that the reception of the said detainees into the Republic of Ghana by the Parliament of Ghana is in excess of his powers under the constitution and hence unconstitutional.

4. A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Article 58(2) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, the President of the Republic of Ghana is under the obligation to execute and maintain the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2008 (Act 762) and the Immigration Act of 2000 (Act 573), both being laws passed under the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.

5. A declaration that on true and proper interpretation of chapter 5 of the 1992 Constitution the President by holding Mahmud Umar Muhammad Bin Atef and Khalid Muhammad Salih Al-Dhuby under restricted conditions without a valid order of a court of competent jurisdiction is breaching their fundamental human rights and thus acting in a manner that is unconstitutional.

6. A declaration that the President of Ghana breached Article 58(2) of the 1993 Constitution of Ghana by agreeing with the Government of the United States of America to have Mahmud Umar Muhammad Bin Atef and Khalid Muhammad Salih Al-Dhuby transferred to the Republic of Ghana.

7. A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of the 2nd schedule of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, the President of the Republic, by agreeing to the transfer of Mahmud Umar Muhammad Bin Atef and Khalid Muhammad Salih Al-Dhuby to the Republic of Ghana, has broken the Presidential Oath.

8. A declaration that the reception of Mahmud Umar Muhammad Bin Atef and Khalid Muhammad Salih Al-Dhuby and their continuous stay in the Republic of Ghana is unlawful.

9. An order directed at the Minister of Interior for the immediate removal and return of Mahmud Umar Muhammad Bin Atef and Khalid Muhammad Salih Al-Dhuby from the Republic of Ghana to the United States of America.

10. Such further or other orders as the honourable Supreme Court will deem fit.

11. Cost for Court expenses and Counsel fees.

 

Comments

comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *