WISCONSIN INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
FACULTY OF LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
ASSIGNMENT
THE ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS IN GHANA:
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE JURISDICTIONS OF THE SUPREME
COURT AND THE HIGH COURT
Name: WELBECK EDEM EGBENU
Submission Date: 18th March 2026
The enforcement of fundamental human rights under the 1992 Constitution of Ghana
reflects a carefully structured judicial framework designed to balance accessibility with
constitutional supremacy. While Chapter Five guarantees fundamental rights, their
enforcement is primarily channelled through two superior courts: the Supreme Court and
the High Court. The dual jurisdiction of these courts is neither accidental nor redundant;
rather, it reflects a deliberate constitutional design that distinguishes between public
constitutional rights and private individual rights.
The Supreme Court derives its jurisdiction from Articles 2 and 130 of the Constitution.
These provisions grant the Court exclusive original jurisdiction in matters involving
constitutional interpretation and enforcement. In Tuffuor v Attorney-General, the Court
clarified that its jurisdiction is limited to genuine constitutional controversies, thereby
preventing its misuse as a trial court for ordinary disputes.
In New Patriotic Party v Attorney-General (31st December Case), the Supreme Court
adopted a purposive approach to constitutional interpretation, emphasising that
constitutional provisions must be interpreted in a manner that advances democratic
governance and fundamental freedoms. This approach aligns with comparative
jurisprudence such as Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, where the Indian Supreme Court
expanded the scope of personal liberty.
A critical dimension of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is its authority to enforce public
rights. In Adjei-Ampofo v Accra metropolitan Assembly and Attorney-General, the Court
recognised that certain constitutional violations affect the public at large and may be
litigated without proof of personal injury. This principle enhances public interest
litigation and ensures governmental accountability.
In contrast, the High Court exercises jurisdiction under Article 33 of the Constitution,
which provides a direct remedy for individuals whose rights have been violated. The
High Court’s role is practical and remedial; it determines facts, evaluates evidence, and
grants reliefs such as damages, injunctions, and habeas corpus.
The distinction between the two courts was reinforced in Ghana Lotto Operators
Association v National Lottery Authority, where the Supreme Court emphasised that
cases involving enforcement of individual rights without substantial constitutional
interpretation should be commenced in the High Court.
Comparatively, the Ghanaian system mirrors other common law jurisdictions. In Minister
of Home Affairs v Fisher, the Privy Council emphasised a generous interpretation of
constitutional rights, a principle consistently applied by Ghanaian courts.
Despite its strengths, the dual system presents challenges, particularly in distinguishing
between interpretation and enforcement. Courts have addressed this through the ‘true
nature of the claim’ test, ensuring that cases are brought before the appropriate forum.
In conclusion, the enforcement of fundamental human rights in Ghana is achieved
through a complementary relationship between the Supreme Court and the High Court.
While the Supreme Court safeguards constitutional supremacy and public rights, the High
Court ensures practical enforcement of individual rights. This dual framework
strengthens the rule of law and enhances the protection of human rights in Ghana.
FOOTNOTES
Tuffuor v Attorney-General [1980] GLR 637 (SC).
NPP v Attorney-General (31st December Case) [1993–94] 2 GLR 35 (SC).
Adjei Ampofo v. Accra Metropolitan Assembly & the Attorney General [2008]
Ghana Lotto Operators Association v National Lottery Authority [2007–2008] SCGLR
1088.
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597.
Minister of Home Affairs v Fisher [1980] AC 319 (PC).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cases
Tuffuor v Attorney-General [1980] GLR 637 (SC).
Adjei Ampofo v. Accra Metropolitan Assembly & the Attorney General [2008]
Ghana Lotto Operators Association v National Lottery Authority [2007–2008] SCGLR
1088.
Comparative Cases
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597.
Minister of Home Affairs v Fisher [1980] AC 319 (PC).
Legislation
Constitution of the Republic of Ghana 1992.