SRC Parliament wins case against All Faculty Presidents; SADR Act 2019 induction lifted
The SRC Judicial Council Chairperson in exercising the powers of a sole adjudicator under Article 60 of the Constitution granted an interim injunction on 11th October 2019 to halt the passing of the said Act until a full hearing has been set.
KNUST SRC Parliamentary Council Logo |
All faculty Presidents filed a suit action to invoked the original jurisdiction of the court under Article 51(1)(b) of the KNUST SRC Constitution 2011 (As Amended) seeking to challenge the constitutionality of the Flat Rate Act passed by the SRC Parliamentary Council. The case was heard on Sunday, 20th October lasting for 8 hours and judgement read on Tuesday evening.
The petitioners of the case alleged during hearing that the said bill which was passed into law was unconstitutional as it breached Articles 44(2) and 44(6) of the Constitution. Counsel for the defendants denied these claims and stated emphatically that the passage of the bill in no way breached the said provisions and that the Act sought to claim certain amounts from the faculties to the colleges but as to what percentage, the petitioners were not able to provide that to the court.
During proceedings, evidence admissibility issues made petitioners lose some key evidences to the whole case. The court took judicial notice of the fact that Presidents and Secretaries of the Colleges were elected by the various members of the faculties and if anything, are the mouthpiece of the people they represent. The Bill was subsequently passed by the SRC Parliamentary Council of which the various College Presidents and Secretaries are a part of the defendants argued.
The defendants subsequently called in their first witness in the person of Mr. Ben-Carl Kwaku Dzogbo (President of CoHSS) to lead evidence to the fact that the Speaker of Parliament took upon itself a moral duty to meet all leaders under the various colleges. I however, the court dismissed the witness with the explanation that it had no bearing.
Court subsequently passed judgment that, the plaintiffs have failed on all the grounds they argued in this action that is, on the grounds of constitutionality and the grounds of breach of discretionary power and as such their case was dismissed.
Story by: Kaakyire Amponsah
Comments
Post a Comment