in this lecture we shall discuss the supremacy and interpretation of the 1992 constitution of ghana the supremacy and interpretation of the 1992 constitution of ghana we shall also look at the categories of persons that have capacity to bring an action to enforce the supremacy of the 1992 constitution must it be any person at all who can bring an action to enforce the supremacy of the constitution we shall address that in this lecture we shall also look at the courts that has jurisdiction the interpretation and enforcement of the 1992 constitution obama so that if you want to enforce the supremacy of the constitution or if you want to go for an interpretation or enforcement of the constitution which court has the jurisdiction for such interpretation or enforcement and then we also seek to find out the tests for determining whether a question later to the interpretation of the constitution has arisen in other words can you just wake up and just say that you are going to the court for an interpretation of the constitution what is the test that has to be satisfied before we can conclude that a person related to the interpretation and enforcement of the constitution has arisen having set out what we shall be discussing in this lecture we shall now begin with article 1 plus 2 of the constitution article 1 plus 2 of the constitution affirms the supremacy of the constitution it clearly lays down that the constitution shall be the supreme law of ghana it reads as follows article 1 2 the constitution shall be the supreme law of ghana and any other law found to be inconsistent with any provision of this constitution should to the extent of the inconsistency devoid article 1 2 clearly therefore lays down the supremacy of the 1992 constitution it says the constitution shall be the supreme law of ghana and any other law found to be inconsistent with any provision of this constitution sound to the extent of that inconsistency devoid article two of the constitution is the cross that seeks to protect article one clause two so that even though article one clause two lay down the supremacy of the 1992 constitution article 2 of the constitution say to the protection of the supremacy of the constitution article 2 provides that when any person identifies that there is a breach of the supremacy of the constitution article to empower such a person to bring an action in the supreme court for a declaration to the effect that there is a breach of the 1992 constitution now i take the view that article 2 protects article 1 plus 2 because if you don't give people the right to bring an action to the supreme court to seek for a declaration and challenge actions that violates the supremacy of the constitution if you don't give people that right then when people breach the supremacy of the constitution what then we do that is why i take the view that article 2 of the constitution sees to the potential of the supremacy of the constitution that been provided for under article 1 2. so article 2 of the 1992 constitution meets as follows and i quote we read that a person who alleges that a an enactment or anything contained in or done under the authority of that or any other enactment or b any act or omission of any person is inconsistent with or is in contravention of a provision of this constitution may bring an action in the supreme court for a declaration to that effect so therefore it is important to note the language of article 2 of the constitution it gives capacity to someone that has been described as a person article 2 says a person who alleges so our next question is that who is this person who is this person can it be just any person at all in ghana who is this person now before we look at who this person is let us also take a look at article 130 of the 1992 constitution which also vests exclusive original jurisdiction in the supreme court in relation to any question or matter that relates to the enforcement or interpretation of the constitution article 130 reads as follows subject to the jurisdiction of the high courts in the enforcement of the fundamental human rights and freedoms as provided in article 33 of this constitution the supreme court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in a all matters relating to the enforcement or interpretation of this constitution and b all matters arising as to whether an announcement was made in excess of the paris conferred on parliament or any other authority or person or by law or under this constitution so underscore 1 30 it was 1a the supreme court is giving exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters relating to the enforcement or interpretation of the 1992 constitution now having established that the supreme court is the one that has exclusive original jurisdiction all matters relating to the interpretation or enforcement of the constitution let us come back to article 2 who are the categories or persons that have the right to bring an action under article 2 to enforce the supremacy of the 1992 constitution article 2 says as follows it says a person who alleges so the question then is that who is this person that can bring an action under article 2 of the constitution to see to the interpretation and enforcement of the constitution the reason this question is important is that some persons have argued that before a person brings an action under article 2 to enforce the supremacy of the constitution that person must not be a busy body he must be somebody who has a personal interest in the outcome of the matter this is the argument that some persons have raised but that is a wrong position the right position is that for a person to have capacity to bring an action under attribution that person must be a citizen of ghana full stop the moment the person shows that he's a citizen of banner then even though he may not have a personal interest in the outcome of the matter such a person has capacity to bring an action to enforce the supremacy of the constitution therefore the expression a person that has been put under article 2 of the 1992 constitution refers to any citizen of ghana regardless of whether the person is someone that has a personal interest in the outcome of the matter or not now the case or let me say one of the cases that has answered this question is the case of some versus attorney general number two reported in 1999 2000 two gunner law reports at page 336 this is the holding of the horse as captured in holding one of the head loops and i could the original interpretative and enforcement jurisdiction of the supreme court under article 2 1 of the constitution 1992 was a special jurisdiction available to any citizen of ghana irrespective of personal interests under article 2 1 of the constitution that is under article 2 plus 1 of the constitution 1992 any person who is who was a citizen was entitled to bring a suit to the supreme court if he alleged that an announcement or anything contained in that announcement was inconsistent with or in contravention of the constitution and to obtain a declaration to that effect hence other requirements for standing like the dispute or controversy requirements of the personal requirements were not necessary when invoking the jurisdiction of the supreme court under article 2 clause 1 of the constitution 1992 consequently the provisions of article 2 plus 1 were to be distinguished from those of article 33 plus one which dealt with the protection of human rights by the courts and in which case the personal interest requirement was a condition for standing to enable the plaintiff to enforce his human rights and freedoms the words in relation to him and that person used in that relatively close one of the confusion 1992 implied that the plaintiff ought to have a personal interest in the litigation which invariably also means that there should have arisen a controversy or a dispute concerning an infringement of the intended confirmment of the plaintiffs and rights accordingly the plaintiff in the aims who was a citizen of ghana and who was seeking the interpretation of the constitution as well as its eventual enforcement was entitled and article 2 plus 1 to invoke the special original jurisdiction of the supreme court and then the court ends so the supreme court in the case of some number two versus attorney general reported in 1999 2000 through ghana law reports at pv36 lays it down clearly that in order to have capacity and local standard to bring an action under article 2 of the 1992 constitution to enforce the supremacy of the constitution all you are required to prove is that you are a citizen of ghana now it is important to mention that before this case of some number two versus attorney general the court in ghana had already had the opportunity to lay down this law in the case of two four vessels attending general to versus attorney foreign reported in 1980 general reports at page 637 this case of to what an attorney general was decided under the 1979 constitution and therefore whenever he decides to foreign attorney general you must be careful in not making it look like support an attorney general was decided under the 1992 constitution it was decided under the 1979 constitution and it was the court of appeal sitting at the supreme court now the peculiar fact of to for an attorney general was that the main issue in controversy was about chief justice apalu who there was a controversy about whether or not he was still the chief justice because when ghana returned to constitutional only 79 apollo who was the chief justice during the military regime he went back to parliament to be approved as a chief justice but parliament refused his approval he was disapproved and therefore because he was approved there was an argument about whether that means that he's no more than jesus or he still achieved justice now the plaintiff who brought the action to the supreme court to form he was not the one who was directly affected far brought an action to the supreme court seeking for a declaration that appaloo as chief justice of the republic of ghana there was no need for him to even go to parliament for approval and that because he was already chief justice before the return of the 1979 constitution he retained his status assassin by virtue of the provisions contained in the 1979 constitution and because he retained his position as such there was no need for him to even go to parliament when he approved now the main point i want to draw here is that to form himself was not the one who was directly affected by the disapproval of apollo in parliament he didn't have any personal interest in the outcome of the matter and therefore went to four brought that action to the supreme court then an objection was raised as to his capacity to bring an action on that matter because according to the attorney general he had no personal interest in the outcome of the matter the court was quick in dismissing the objection and the court holding that whenever any person arises as to the enforcement of the constitution an action could be brought by any citizen of ghana even if that person did not have a personal interest in the matter all the person has to prove is that he is a citizen of ghana the court of appeals sitting at the supreme court speaking to sarah james roundly rejected by attending objection and held that every citizen of ghana had the right to bring an action to enforce the supremacy of the 1979 constitution and these are the words of seward jsc at page six four nine of the reports six four nine to six fifty he says as follows united quotes the constitution confessed on every citizen of ghana by article one plus three the right to resist any person or person seeking to abolish the constitutional order as established by this constitution [Music] should no other remedy be possible this means that every citizen of ghana has the right or otherwise to see to end that the constitutional order as established by the constitution is not abolished or sought to be abolished one method by which it will be determined whether a person is seeking to abolish the constitutional order is to seek for an interpretation of the constitution as to the meaning or effect of a particular probation or provisions of the constitution there is a right a duty cash upon every citizen of ghana to go to the supreme court for a determination whether a person or person is or are seeking to abolish the constitutional order established by the constitution the caught into foreign attorney general therefore held that the local standard to bring an action to enforce the supremacy of even the 1979 constitution was given to every citizen of ghana and in the same position in tufor and attorney general that have been reaffirmed in the case of some number two versus artemisia reported in 1999 2000 to that report at page 336. now the next question that has a reason still an article 3 is that because into 4 and attending general the point has been made that local standard to enforce the constitution is given to a citizen of ghana the question is whether persons who are not natural persons like human beings but are rather artificial persons like companies like body copies what are some artificial persons can also bring an action and that's cool too in other words our body cooperates or artificial bodies within the categories of people we can describe as a person that has been referred to under article 2 of the constitution now a person under attitude the case law and the supreme court has indicated and held that that expression a person also includes artificial persons and body corporates and you see this in the case of new patriotic party versus attorney general 1997-98 one gamer law reports at the 378 what we know as the seba case in this case when the new patriotic party brought an action under article 2 seeking to enforce some provisions of the 1992 constitution an objection was raised on the basis that the expression a person that has been used in that school too should only be referable to natural persons natural persons who are citizens of ghana and that it should not include artificial persons but like i have said the supreme court helped that's the expression a person under article 2 but will be interpreted to include artificial persons this is the holding of the courts that come has been captured in the headlines under holding one b and i quote the constitution 1992 granted rights and freedoms to both natural and legal persons under article 3 was 4a and 41b of the constitution it was the duty of every citizen both natural and legal to defend and uphold the constitution through the enforcement for syria under article 2 plus 1. thus article 12 required that certain specified persons including natural and legal persons in ghana should respect and uphold the fundamental human rights and freedoms enshrined in chapter five of the constitution in the results proceedings could be taken in court against all such persons for the enforcement of the fundamental rights and freedoms similarly it was possible for legal persons to institute proceedings for the enforcement of their rights and freedoms that as provided under article 18 clause 1 a corporation could own property and if its property was interfered with as provided by article 18 close to that corporation would be entitled to go to court for enforcement of its rights either under example 33 or under article 2 clause 1 for the interpretation of any announcements what adversity affected its property in the circumstances to interpret the word person as appearing in article 18 one and two to meet only a natural person or to give the word explain and grammatical meaning would be to give it a narrow meaning contrary to the rules of constitutional interpretation which required that the provisions of the constitution should be given a labor and one million rather than a narrow or doctrinal one to suit the changing social and financial development of the nation accordingly under article 2 plus 1 of the constitution 1992 other than the citizenship requirements no limitation was placed on the nature of persons who might invoke the original jurisdiction of the supreme court accordingly there was no logical reason for restricting the resort to the regional jurisdiction of the supreme court to national peace and in the good end so what the supreme court has essentially done is that local standard to bring an action to enforce the constitution under article 2 even though into for an attorney general we are being told that the capacity and local standard is given to natural persons like citizens of ghana the supreme court in the case of new patriotic party and attorney general sivakis has extended the meaning of that person to include artificial persons so that artificial persons like bodies corporates can bring an action to enforce the supremacy of the 1992 constitution this same position that artificial persons can bring an action under article 2 to enforce the constitution has been reaffirmed in the case of federation of youth association of banner fed versus the public universities of ghana and others reported in 2010 supreme court of ghana law reports at page 265 in this case of failure versus public universities of ghana abu never jic said as follows and i quote that consequently the plaintiff as a registered body has capacity to bring an action under at two plus one of the constitution good ends so this same position that has been affirmed in new patriotic party and attorney general the siba case has been reaffirmed in 2010 by the case of fedjak vs public university of ghana and others so now so far we know one that when any person seeks to enforce the constitution the court that has jurisdiction is the supreme court we also know from to form an attorney general that local standard to bring an action to enforce the constitution has been given to citizens of ghana we also know from new patriotic party and attorney general's hebra case and also fight yak vs public universities and others that that expression a person under article 2 can be extended to include artificial persons so that body corporates can bring an action under article 2 to enforce the supremacy of the constitution now the next question is that at which point in time can we conclude that a question related to the interpretation of the constitution of ghana as a reason now the answer to this question is very very important because when you look at article 130 plus 2 of the 1992 constitution it provides that if a person appears before any courts in ghana apart from the supreme court so let's say if the person appears before the district court the circuit court the high court the court of appeal if we appear before any court in ghana apart from the supreme court and there is an issue that arises in such a court and the issue relates to a matter of question that is related to the interpretation or enforcement of the constitution then that courts must steer proceedings and refer that person of law involving the interpretation or enforcement to the supreme court for a determination and then when you have gone to the supreme court and they have been separated they will refer their issue back to the trial court and the charcoal shall dispose of the case in accordance with the decision of the supreme court so it means that to the lawyer and to the law students it is important for you to know and find out when you can simply conclude that a person that relates to the interpretation and enforcement has arisen because the moment you identify that it means you have to say proceedings and refer that issue to the supreme court for an interpretation so what then is the test remember we are also very careful that we don't set a very low benchmark so that anytime any person goes before the second part of the district would do just frame something to make it look like it is a question about interpretation of the constitution i know this you need to delay the proceedings so that the lower court will have to refer to the supreme court for interpretation so there's a need for some clerk of guidelines on how we can safely conclude that a question that relates to the interpretation or enforcement of the constitution has arisen now the starting point for this is the case of republic versus may kind kind and others republic this is the kind kind and others may can kind of m a i k and others so the republic versus macan kind and others reported in 1971 two ghana law reports had paid 473 this case lays down the position that it is not every time that the lower court would have to refer a question to the supreme court foreign application and that the lower court is not bound to refer to the supreme court when the provision in question is very very clear and unambiguous means that if the provision in question is clear and somebody is trying to deliberately raise an issue of interpretation the lower court is supposed to resist that invitation bannerman cg who read the decision of the supreme court set as follows at page 475 and remember we are still on the case of the republic versus be kind kind and addis this is what bannerman cg said and i quote we wish to comment that a lower court is not bound to refer to the supreme court every submission are legend as an issue the determination of a question of interpretation of the constitution if in the opinion of the lower courts the answer to a submission is clear and unambiguous on the face of the provisions of the constitution or the laws of ghana no reference need be made since no question of interpretation arises and the person who disagrees with or is aggrieved by the ruling of the lower courts has is remedied by the normal way of abu if he so chooses to interpret the provisions of article 106 plus 2 of the constitution in any other way may until and encourages references to the supreme court of frivolous submissions some of which may be intended to start to fight proceedings or the due process of law and may lead to delays such as may amount in fact to a denial of justice the supreme court in the case of the republic versus be kind kind and others 1971 to the lord reports he's saying that if you are in any other court and anybody just makes any frivolous invitation to you but judge telling you that what he has framed is a question of interpretation of the constitution and so you should refer to the supreme court for an interpretation the case is saying that you must resist that interpretation that invitation because when the provision in question is clear and non-ambiguous you can go ahead as a judge and apply the provisions of the constitution and you need not make any reference to the supreme court's fund interpretation this is the case of republic versus kind and others 1971 through ghana reports at page 473 so the republic versus bay kankai is telling us that if the probation is clear then there's no question of interpretation but when can we as lawyers and as law students when can we safely conclude that a person that relates to the interpretation of the constitution has arisen all that because tells us that if it is clear the court can go ahead to apply it it will not refer but we still need an answer to the question when should the lower courts refer to the supreme court for an interpretation bet it behooves at this point that i rehashed article 130 plus 2 of the 1992 constitution that says that where an issue that relates to a matter or question that is related to the interpretation or enforcement of the constitution and it arises in any courts other than the supreme court that court shall stay proceedings and refer that question of law involved to the supreme court so for lawyer when do we conclude that a person that relates to the interpretation has arisen in which case a lower court would have to stay proceedings and refer it to the supreme court for an interpretation we will have to refer to the case of republic versus special tribunal ex party acosa akosa is spelled h reported in 1980 gandala reports at page 592. this case plays a fundamental role and has thrown a lot of light that has been guiding the courts in determining when the court can safely conclude that the question related to the interpretation or enforcement has arisen in which case a lower court would have to refer the issue to the supreme court for an interpretation it is a very very important case that all lawyers law students must be very familiar with this is the case of republic the special tribunal ex-party akosa 1980 gun allah reports this is what was held in the case and i'm quoting from the headless an issue of enforcement or interpretation of the constitution 1979 and articles 1181a would arise in any of the following eventualities a where the words of the provision were imprecise or unclear or ambiguous put in another way if it would arise if one party invited the court to declare that the words of the article had a double meaning or were obscure or else meant something different from or more than what they said b where rival meanings have been placed by litigants on the words of any probation of the constitution see where there was a conflict in the meaning and effect of two or more articles of the constitution and the question was raised as to which provision should prevail and d where on the face of the provisions there was a conflict between the operation of particular institutions set up under the constitution so we shall take each of these four requirements aligned in experts are closer and then threw more lights on them so x factor is saying that one when the words of the provision the constitutional provision when emphasized or unclear then we can safely conclude that a question that relates to the interpretation of the constitution as a reason again if you have a conditional provision and two parties have placed rival meanings on the words of any provision of the constitution so that for example one party is alleging that when you interpret it it's going to lead to conclusion a the other party is saying that when you interpret it it's going to lead to conclusion b it means rival meanings have been placed by the litigants on the words of the provision in the constitution in that case to expert the acosa is saying that it is a question that involves the interpretation of the constitution so you have to stay and refer the issue to the supreme court and then the third one is that you could have the same constitution there may be article 5 and then article 130 there appears to be a conflict or a conflict between two articles which are in the constitution and there's a question as to which of the two should prevail in that case to expect yakuza is saying that there is a question of interpretation of the constitution in which case you have to refer to the supreme court financial interpretation and the fourth scenario is where on the face of the provisions of the constitution there was a conflict between the operation of particular institutions set up under the constitution so for example institutions set up under the constitution can be trash it could also be ncce national commission for civic education if there is a conflict that appears amongst institutions established under the constitution that's one two expert yakuza is saying that it is a question that involves the interpretation of the constitution in which case you have to refer it to the supreme court for an interpretation now it is important to note that this case of republic that's a special tribunal expert yakuza was decided under the 1979 constitution of ghana so the question is in view of the fact that it was decided under the 1979 constitution of ghana and it still be deemed to be good law in light of the fact that we now have the 1992 constitution of ghana the answer to the question is yes ex party acosa is still good law and has been affirmed by the supreme court after the coming into force of the 1992 constitution so many cases have affirmed so many cases in fact in the case of opon versus attorney general 2003 2004 supreme court of ghana law reports at p376 the courts affirmed these principles that were formulated in x-party akusa again in the case of bin pom butter versus general legal council menadis reported in 2003 2005 one gunner reports at page 378 the court once again affirmed the guidelines formulated in x-party acosa you read the case of being from butter the general league council 2003 2005 one ghana law reports at the 378 specifically at page 752 you will notice that akufu jse referred and quoted out in the extensive expertise and its guidelines and she said as follows this statement and the statement here he's referring to the statement of en nin ninja this inexp remains good law today and continues to serve as a valuable deadline whenever the original jurisdiction of the supreme court is invoked under articles 2 and 130 plus 1 of our present constitution 1992 and has been repeatedly applied by the sports she's not only endorsing the view of a ninja in espartakosa but she's saying that it has been repeatedly applied by the supreme court that is what i'm saying that as for expertisa even though it was decided under the 19th conversation it is still good law because the supreme court has repeatedly applied it under the 1992 constitution but i think i must be quick to add that even though we are saying that if a question that relates to the interpretation of the constitution arises you must refer to the supreme court when the provision of the constitution is clear then the normal court will be bound to apply the constitution and let's apply it without necessarily making a reference to the supreme court for interpretation so akufu jse in the case of bim bombuta versus general league council and addis reported in 2003 2005 one gandalf report at p738 delivered herself at page 753 of the report as follows unlike in advance the second this is true ii reported in 2000 supreme court of ghana law reports at paid 165. this part in striking now the action therein considered the original jurisdiction of the courts and had this to see pay aqua gs as he then was at page 167 169 and 171 as follows and i quote the original jurisdiction vested in the supreme court under articles 2 clause 1 and 130 plus 1 of the 1992 constitution to interpret and enforce the provisions of the constitution is a special jurisdiction meant to be invoked in suits raising genuine or real issues of interpretation of a provision of the constitution or enforcement of a provision of the constitution or a question whether an announcement was made ultra virus parliament or any other authority or person by law or under the constitution this special jurisdiction is not meant to recep or to be resorted to in place of any of the jurisdictions of the lower courts in other words where our such jurisdiction has been invoked in an action which properly falls within a particular cause of action at the lower part this course shall refuse to assume jurisdiction in that action notwithstanding the fact that it has been presented as an interpretation or enforcement suit or both for a large number of actions would fall within specific causes of action can be presented in the form of interpretation or enforcement actions of youth now it is very important to understand and appreciate that the 1992 constitution is the fundamental and supreme law of the land the provisions of which no other law is permitted to contradict therefore all courts tribunals institutions including the government and all individuals are bound by the provisions of the constitution accordingly all courts tribunals and indeed all adjudicating authorities in ghana are obliged to apply the provisions of the constitution in the education of this use before them in summary then one has the original jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the provisions of the constitution is vested solely in the supreme court every court and tribunal is duty-bound invested with jurisdiction to apply the provisions of the constitution in adjudication of disputes before it i'll take that portion once again in summary then whereas the original jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the provisions of the constitution is vested solely in the supreme court every court and tribunal is duty-bound or vested with jurisdiction to apply the provisions of the constitution in the adjudication of this use before it and this jurisdiction is not taken away merely by a party's reference to or reliance on deprivation of the constitution so it is not every case that arises before the lower courts that you might necessarily refer it to the supreme court for interpretation if it doesn't fall within the guidelines and the expertise there'll be no need for you to refer and also bear in mind even if it falls under the guidelines the next part is but there's a previous interpretation on that position of the supreme court if the supreme court has biggest interpretations then why should require the announce want to refer it again to the supreme court for interpretation we want to generously protect the higher ground of the supreme court and we don't want to belabor the supreme court with any matter at all that anybody frames that as an issue of interpretation you want to be sure that before an issue is referred to the supreme court then there's a real and genuine issue of of interpretation and one point that i want to draw your attention to is this you remember index yakuza i mean they made the point that when the provision is clear and unambiguous there'll be no need then then it means that you have to refer it to the supreme court of an interpretation that is what i mean he said that when the provision is unclear or ambitious and you remember what we said in republic versus behind time that when the provision is clear and unambiguous there will be no need to make a reference to the supreme court now any students of constitutional law would notice that today in light of the modern perpossive approach interpretation things provisions in the constitution that you might think is actually very very very clear would actually not be plain and it will actually require the supreme court to interpret for example in the case of republic versus fast-track high courts ex-parties trash dr interested party 2007-2008 supreme court gunner law reports piece 213 even the word complaint that has been used under article 218 of the constitution the supreme court held that it was a word that required the interpretation of the supreme court so under the modern deposit approach interpretation provisions that otherwise you think are actually clear they have inherent to be provisions that require the interpretation of the supreme court and so the supreme court has had a warning that even though they encourage lower courts to refer issues to the supreme court for interpretation this the lower court's very very slow and cautious and coming to the conclusion that a provision in question is very very clear which will not require a reference to the supreme court in other words if a case comes before you and you're in the high pot do not be in the house to say that after all the provision is very plain so you can go ahead and apply it because you've been told in bim buddha this is glc that's when the provision is played you can go ahead and apply it the supreme court is saying that you should be very slow in coming to that conclusion because that proceed procedure that you even go through to even say a provision is clear that procedure itself can even amount to youth incorporating the constitution and so this point has been made strongly in the case of republic versus high courts general jurisdiction x-party senator runnings assistant and nbc interested parties reported in 2015 2016 supreme court of dynamo reports at page 53. in this case i took over jsc speaking for the supreme court set as follows and i quote it has to be realized that the initial signs of the supreme court exemplified by cases such as republic versus the khan khan expertise a drama the second intuition which led emphasis on the plain meaning of the statutes we see that the new era of interpretation based on the non-dominance principle of perturbed constructive construction of tattoos particularly the constitution indeed beginning with republic versus high court fast track division expert the electoral commission meteorolo and others interested parties 2005 2006 supreme court reports i paid 514 the tide against ready referral for interpretation began to change in that case apparently very clear and unambiguous from seasonal provisions were held to be referable ambiguities that's in republic versus high courts fast-track division ex-party trans and an injured party 207 208 supreme court of ghana law reports at day two and three this court held and the world complaints in article 218a of the constitution was ambiguous and was referred to this court for interpretation indeed in that case the court held that a lower court order not readily to assume that a constitutional provision is plain and unambiguous it means that even though expat they are closer we are told that when a provision is unclear you have to refer and in mechanical you've been told that if it is clear the lower court would have to apply it that preceded the non-dominant error of the positive approach interpretation and now we are warning the lower courts that they should be slow and coming to the conclusion that a question is clear and therefore do not refer to the supreme court interpretation this brings us to the end of our lecture of supremacy and interpretation of the 1992 constitution of ghana thank you