Minority NDC MPs
The Supreme Court (SC) yesterday dismissed an application filed by some Minority Members of Parliament seeking an injunction against the implementation of the Electronic Transfer Levy (E-Levy).
A seven-member panel of the court presided over by Justice Nene Amegatcher, in a unanimous decision held that the balance of inconvenience tilts in favour of the state and irreparable damage will be done to the state if the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) is injuncted from going ahead to collect the levy.
The court, however, directed the GRA to keep accurate records of the amounts deducted as levy so that at the end of the substantive case challenging the passage of the E-Levy Act, nobody will be disadvantaged.
Minority Leader, Haruna Iddrisu together with his colleague NDC MPs, Mahama Ayariga and Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, after the passage of the bill filed a writ at the Supreme Court contesting that Parliament did not have the required number to form a quorum to vote and approve the E-Levy Act (Act 1075).
They later filed an application for interlocutory injunction against the implementation of the Act pending the determination of their suit, although GRA had implemented the Act during the pendency of the substantive case and the application for interlocutory injunction.
Moving the motion yesterday, Godwin Kudzo Tameklo, counsel for the plaintiffs, argued that as at the time the Act was passed only 136 MPs were present because one of the MPs from the Majority side was not in the Chamber but was counted to be part of the quorum.
He averred that the constitutional quorum required for the passage of the Act is 138, so whether it was 136 or 137 MPs which is the bone of contention between the parties, same did not meet the constitutional threshold.
Mr. Tameklo told the court that there will be irreparable damage done to the plaintiffs and the public if GRA is allowed to go ahead and implement the collection of the levy pending the determination of the suit.
The court on many occasions during Mr. Tameklo’s presentation expressed concern about the plaintiffs’ claim that there were 267 members present, and the Minority walked out of the Chamber, but did not provide any evidence to show the record of MPs in the Chamber at the time the vote was taken, as the record of proceedings show that the number present in Parliament on March 29, 2022, when the bill was passed was 267, and the number did not change to 137.
One of the panel members asked counsel what irreparable damage will be done the plaintiffs if at the end of the case the court determines that the levy was collected illegally, and Mr. Tameklo indicated that “by the nature of the collection, you cannot reimburse because it is a daily collection.”
Opposed
The application was opposed by the Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, who averred that it was incompetent, failed to disclose any cause of action and how a refusal of the application will affect the substantive issues, and no factual circumstances have been canvassed to show that the proceedings of Parliament were irregular.
“The applicants are required to provide requisite evidence which they have failed to provide, and that is why we are saying the application is incompetent,” Mr. Dame argued.
He said the parliamentary quorum is not static and changes based on the number of MPs elected to Parliament at a particular time, adding that the MP for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson had been disqualified by the Cape Coast High Court and his appeal was also struck out by the Cape Coast Court of Appeal, so the number required for quorum was 137.
A seven-member panel of the court presided over by Justice Nene Amegatcher and assisted by Justices Nii Ashie Kotey, Mariama Owusu, Avril Lovelace Johnson, Gertrude Torkornoo, Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, and Yonny Kulendi, in balancing the hardships in the event that the suit succeeds held that the sums deducted from transactions could be refunded whereas if the levy is injuncted and the suit fails, the GRA would be unable to recover the levy.
The court, therefore, dismissed the application for injunction holding that the balance of inconvenience tilts in favour of the state, and ordered the GRA to keep accurate records of the amounts deducted.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak