Paragraph 1: The Genesis of the Contempt Case
Jonathan Amable, a private legal practitioner, has initiated contempt proceedings against Ghana’s Minister of Finance, Dr. Mohammed Amin Adam, for alleged disregard of the constitutionally mandated borrowing procedures. Amable argues that the Minister has persistently borrowed funds from the treasury bills market without obtaining prior parliamentary approval, a clear violation of Article 181 of the 1992 Constitution. This article explicitly mandates that all government borrowings must be authorized by Parliament. The lawyer’s contempt application stems from the Minister’s alleged defiance of an injunction filed on November 11, 2024, which sought to enforce Article 181 and halt unauthorized borrowing.
Paragraph 2: Alleged Unauthorized Borrowings and the Injunction Application
Amable’s petition highlights that despite the pending injunction application before the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Finance has continued to borrow significantly from the treasury bills market. He contends that within just four weeks following the injunction filing, over GHS 20 billion has been borrowed. These borrowings, according to Amable, demonstrate a blatant disregard for the legal process and the authority of the court. He has urged the Supreme Court to expedite the hearing of the injunction application, originally scheduled for November 27, 2024, to address the Minister’s alleged contemptuous actions and prevent further unauthorized borrowing.
Paragraph 3: The Attorney General’s Silence and Concerns about Economic Implications
Amable also criticizes the Attorney General’s lack of response to the ongoing legal proceedings. The Attorney General’s silence, he argues, further exacerbates the situation and signals a potential disregard for the rule of law. The lawyer expresses deep concern over the potential economic ramifications of these alleged unconstitutional borrowings. He warns that if left unchecked, such practices could have dire consequences for Ghana’s economy, potentially undermining fiscal stability and debt sustainability.
Paragraph 4: Details of the Alleged Unauthorized Borrowings
The petition provides specific details of the alleged unauthorized borrowings undertaken by the Ministry of Finance since the injunction application was filed. It outlines four instances of treasury bill issuances, raising approximately GHS 5.2 billion, GHS 6.4 billion, GHS 3.8 billion, and GHS 5.2 billion, respectively, in the four consecutive weeks following the injunction. This amounts to a total of GHS 20.6 billion in new loans. The petition further reveals the Ministry’s apparent intention to borrow an additional GHS 6.8 billion on December 13, 2024, raising further concerns about the government’s commitment to respecting the court process and adhering to constitutional borrowing procedures.
Paragraph 5: Implications for the Rule of Law and Constitutional Governance
The case raises critical questions about the rule of law and constitutional governance in Ghana. The Minister of Finance’s alleged disregard for a pending injunction and the constitutional requirement for parliamentary approval of government borrowings represents a serious challenge to the separation of powers and the authority of the judiciary. It highlights the potential vulnerability of democratic institutions and processes to executive overreach. The Supreme Court’s handling of this case will have far-reaching implications for the enforcement of constitutional provisions and the protection of the rule of law.
Paragraph 6: The Need for Transparency and Accountability in Public Borrowing
This case underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in government borrowing practices. Unauthorized borrowings, conducted without parliamentary scrutiny and approval, undermine democratic principles and create risks of fiscal mismanagement and unsustainable debt levels. The ongoing legal battle emphasizes the need for strict adherence to constitutional provisions and established procedures to ensure responsible fiscal management and protect the interests of the Ghanaian people. The outcome of this case will likely have significant implications for future government borrowing practices and could potentially lead to strengthened mechanisms for oversight and accountability.
