Government can’t sack CEOs – Supreme Court declares


The expulsion of heads of open companies because of a difference in government has been announced as illegal by the Supreme Court.

In a consistent choice, a seven-part board of the court, directed by the Chief Justice, Justice Sophia Akuffo, held that per Article 190 Clause 1(b) of the 1992 Constitution, open organizations were a piece of the Public Services of Ghana and, in this manner, such people were open administration officials whose arrangements were secured by the Constitution.

As indicated by the court, the arrangements of such open administration officials were administered by Article 195 of the Constitution.ati

The evacuation of such open administration officials, the court held, must, in this way, be done as per the terms and states of their agreement of commitment or it must be defended, as stipulated in Article 191 of the Constitution.

Article 195 Clause 1 of the Constitution gives the President of the Republic the ability to designate open administration officials, however with the exhortation of the overseeing leading body of the particular company, “given in meeting with the Public Services Commission”.

Article 191 (b) expresses: “An individual from the open administration will not be rejected or expelled from office or decreased in rank or generally rebuffed without a noble motivation.”

Import of the choice

By this choice, the Supreme Court has canceled the segment of the Presidential (Transition) Act 2012 (Act 845) which ended the arrangements of the CEOs or chief commanders of open companies, statutory sheets and experts upon the presumption of office of another President.

“To the degree that Section 14 of the Presidential (Transition) Act 2012 (Act 845) requires the CEOs or chief general (anyway portrayed) of open sheets or companies to stop to hold office upon the suspicion of office by an individual chosen as President of the Republic of Ghana, the equivalent is thus proclaimed to be unlawful and void for being in repudiation of articles 190 and 191 of the Constitution,” the court held.

The consistent choice of the court was perused by Justice Professor Nii Ashie Kotey, while different individuals on the board were Justices Jones Dotse, Sule Gbadegbe, Anthony A. Benin, Samuel K. Marful-Sau and Nene Amegatcher.

Lawful test

The case finishing in the Supreme Court’s judgment was started on January 4, 2017, by a lawful specialist, Mr. Theophilus Donkor, who conjured the first ward of the court to decipher the 1992 Constitution.

Advice for the offended party was Mr. Godwin Edudzi Tamakloe.

It was the conflict of the offended party that the training whereby CEOs, chief commanders, and heads of open organizations, statutory sheets, and specialists, just as the overseeing sheets of such foundations, must move to one side during a difference in government was unlawful.

He looked for the accompanying reliefs:

A presentation that the expulsion from the office of such CEOs, CEOs, executive commanders (howsoever called) and individuals from overseeing sheets of open companies simply by virtue of the supposition of office of the individual chosen as President “does not add up to an admirable motivation and is in like manner unlawful”;

Second, an assertion that to the degree that Section 14 of the Presidential (Transition) Act 2012 (Act 845) requires every CEO, CEOs, executive commanders (howsoever called) and individuals from overseeing sheets of open enterprises to stop to hold office just because of the suspicion of office of the individual chosen as President, the said Section 14 is illegal as being conflicting with the letter and soul of the Constitution, especially articles 70(1)(d)(iii), 190 as well as 191(b) of the Constitution;

Third, a request of interminable order controlling any individual or expert from expelling from the office such CEOs, CEOs, executive commanders (howsoever called) and individuals from overseeing sheets of open organizations only because of the presumption of office of the individual chosen as President.

Board individuals can be expelled

The court, be that as it may, rejected the offended party’s help concerning the individuals from the administering sheets of open partnerships delegated by the President, as per Article 70 Clause 1 (d) (iii).

As per the court, the board individuals designated by the President could be evacuated upon the decision of another President since they were not open administration officials.

“Individuals from administering sheets of statutory sheets and partnerships delegated as per Article 70(1)(d)(iii) of the Constitution are not individuals from the Public Service and their residency isn’t represented by articles 191 and 195 of the Constitution. Hence, every individual might be evacuated freely by the President. We proclaim in like manner,” the court held.

Article 70 Clause 1(d)(iii) of the Constitution expresses: “The President will acting in discussion with the Council of State, choose the administering sheets of open companies.”

Open partnerships

The judgment by the Supreme Court influences every single open partnership under Article 190 Clause 1(b) of the 1992 Constitution. These are open enterprises not set up for business adventures.

They incorporate the National Petroleum Authority, the Forestry Commission, the National Communications Authority, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Petroleum Commission and the National Pensions Regulatory Authority.

Constrained risk organizations

The Supreme Court additionally made a profession on state endeavors set up for business adventures, for example, the GCB Bank, the Agricultural Development Bank, the Ghana Oil Limited, the State Housing Company and the National Investment Bank Limited.

It held that albeit such organizations were not open companies under Article 190 Clause 1(b) of the Constitution, both their heads and their overseeing sheets couldn’t be evacuated on the supposition of office of another President.

“These are not statutory sheets or companies. They are constrained obligation organizations fused under the Companies Act, 1963 (Act 179). Some are recorded on the Ghana Stock Exchange. Upon purposive elucidation of Section 14 of Act 845, we hold that individuals from the overseeing sheets of these organizations and CEOs are not influenced by Section 14 of Act 845. Individuals from the sheets and CEOs of such organizations will just be evacuated as per the articles of consolidation of the organization and the Companies Act, 1963 (Act 179),” the court held.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here