Government is asking justices of the Supreme Court to throw out a case in which two Ghanaians are asking the court to declare as unconstitutional President John Mahama's admission into Ghana of two terror suspects from Guantanamo Bay.
The Deputy Attorney General, Dominic Ayine, among other things argues the plaintiffs have come to the court with "dubious" hearsay evidence and must not be entertained in the highest court of the land.
The plaintiffs, Margaret Banful and Henry Nana Boakye contend the president breached the law by allowing the two terror suspects who were arrested by the US under the fight against terrorism, detained for 14 years in Cuba but are now in Ghana to serve another two years of detention under a controversial agreement signed between Ghana and the US.
They said the agreement entered between Ghana and US was an international agreement and should have gone to Parliament for ratification.
They quoted Article 75 (2), of the constitution which says "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 one-half of all the members of parliament.”
The decision to bring the two suspects triggered a wave of criticism in the country with some suggesting the president did not only violate provisions of the Anti-terrorism law, but also failed to inform Parliament about the agreement.
After the heavy media war between critics and government spokespersons, the plaintiffs decided to test the law at the Supreme Court and are requesting the judges to declare the two personae non grata.
But in a statement of claim the Deputy Attorney General told the justices the plaintiffs have no legal basis to stand on.
He argued the claim that the case ought to go to Parliament is moot because the agreement under which the two terror suspects came to Ghana does not fall within the remit of international transaction or treaties.
Dominic Ayine in his claim stated : “there exists an agreement between the two governments which was reached by exchange of confidential diplomatic notes otherwise known as Not Verbales.”
Not every arrangement qualifies as a treaty or convention so by not submitting the agreement to Parliament the president has not breached the constitution, he averred.
The deputy Attorney General also questioned the authenticity of some of the documents brought by the plaintiffs.
He said the sources of some of the documents are unofficial and not authentic. He pleaded with the justices to dismiss the case because it has no foundation in law.
But a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee in Parliament Patrick Yaw Boamah, who is also a lawyer, told Joy News every international agreement, whether in writing or verbal, must come to Parliament for ratification.
<<Print>>