The Proportionality Test Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Ghana
Keywords:
proportionality test, jurisprudence, constitutionalism, constitutional adjudicationAbstract
This paper does not promise any comprehensive evaluation of the worth of the Supreme Court of Ghana, especially as it relates to the positive engagement of the court with all legal principles. The purpose of this article is to explore the idea of a more progressive theory of legal analysis in respect of the proportionality principle. Although the Court's formalistic, rule-based explanation for the proportionality principle needs strengthening, and its application in specific instances may be questioned, the principle itself is not the product of illegitimate judicial activism. Inherent in this principle, we will argue, is a legal culture of justification reasonably required for the protection of constitutional rights in the administrative decision-making process. On the account of this, we claim that the application of the proportionality test constitutes a soft constitutionalism principle to safeguard rights in administrative justice actions.
References
[1961] GLR 523
Atuguba R. A, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Ghana 'Contemporary Constitutional Issues
in our Multiparty Democracy' (Speech at Fourth Annual Re Akoto and Seven Others Memorial
Lecture, 2 April 2009) at 10 <https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/ghana/10482.pdf>accessed 30
November 2024 (Noting that “[t]he Supreme Court had effectively re-fastened Ghana to the apron
strings of her colonizers and reconnected the umbilical cord to Britain, which umbilical cord was
definitively slashed by the 1960 Constitution with the declaration of Republican status barely a year
before the Re Akoto decision.” )
Re Akoto op.cit (n 1) at 530
Seidman ‘Judicial Review and Fundamental Freedoms in Anglophonic Independent Africa’ (1974)
Ohio St. L.J. 820 at 847.
Prempeh, H. Kwasi. ‘Neither “Timorous Souls” nor “Bold Spirits”: Courts and the Politics of
Judicial Review in Post-Colonial Africa.’ (2012) 45 Verfassung Und Recht in Übersee / Law and
Politics in Africa, Asia and Latin America 157–77. JSTOR
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/43256850>accessed 1 Dec. 2024. (Noting the predisposition of courts
in postcolonial Africa in exercising judicial review)
[2022] GHASC 103
[1996-97] SCGLR 500.
[2010] SCGLR 575.
Robert Alexy opines that the proportionality principle could be justified on the basis of the necessity
thesis or the contingency thesis. See, Alexy Infra (n 32) 51-65. The Constitution of Ghana does not
expressly provide for the proportionality principle. However, it contains numerous limitation
clauses that prescribe the requirements of reasonableness or reasonably necessary or reasonably
justifiable as limitations on enumerated rights. See, e.g, articles 14(4)(b), 18(3)(c) and (d), 21(1)(f),
(3),21(4)(e), 21(6),24(4) and 31(9)(b) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.
See Arjomand S. A 'Constitutional development and political reconstruction from nation-building
to new constitutionalism' in S. A. Arjomand (ed) Constitutionalism and Political Reconstruction
(Brill Academic Pub, 2007) 1-43; See also Nyawa, Malidzo J, ‘Freedom of Expression on the
Internet: How Justice Makau Reduced Freedom of Expression to a Cipher’ (2023) SSRN Electronic
Journal at 3 <http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4389437> accessed 1 December 2024 (Stating that
proportionality is not only and elusive concept in terms of a policy document like the constitution,
but it also “escapes the judge and the[ir] decision stultifies the growth of our transformative and
living constitution”.)
Perju V., 'Constitutional Transplants, Borrowing, and Migrations' (2012) in Michel Rosenfeld and
András Sajó (eds), Oxford Handbook on Comparative Constitutional Law (OUP 2012)
<https://ssrn.com/abstract=1982230> accessed 1 December 2024.
Urbina F. J, 'A Critique of Proportionality' (2012) 57 American Journal of Jurisprudence at 67
<https://ssrn.com/abstract=2173690> accessed 1 December 2024.
[1997-98] 1 GLR 611 at 629
Sweet A.S. & Mathews J, ‘Proportionality Balancing and Global Constitutionalism’ (2008) 47
Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 160–61; See also Lurie G. ‘Proportionality and the Right
to Equality’ (2020) 21 German Law Journal 174-196
Ibid 1
Cohen-Eliya M. & Porat I., ‘American balancing and German proportionality: The historical
origins’ (2010) 8 International Journal of Constitutional Law at 271
Hirschberg L, Der Grundsatz der Verhdltnismaifiigheit (G6ttingen: Schwarz, 1981) at 6
Cohen-Eliya & Porat (n 16) 271; See also Fleiner, Fritz. Institutionen Des Deutschen
Verwaltungsrechts. (Tübingen: Mohr, Moshe 1928) at 404; See Mathews J, 'Proportionality Review
in Administrative Law' in Susan Rose-Ackerman, Peter L Lindseth and Blake Emerson (eds),
Comparative Administrative Law (2nd edn, Edward Elgar Publishing 2017) Penn State Law
Research Paper No 25-2016 <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2836264> accessed 1 December 2024.
Grimm D., ‘Proportionality in Canadian and German Constitutional Jurisprudence’ (2007) 57
University of Toronto Law Journal 383-397 at 384-5
Cohen-Eliya & Porat op.cit (n 16) at 267
See Schneider v. New Jersey 308 US 147 (1939) (Here, the Supreme Court weighed the right to
free speech against the municipality's interest in maintaining clean streets. It ultimately determined
that, under the specific circumstances of the case, the prohibition infringed upon the right to free
speech.); See also Cohen-Eliya & Porat op.cit (n 16) at 272
BVerfGE 3, 383, 399 (1954); BVerfGE 7, 377 (1958) [Pharmacy Case]. See also Beatty Infra (n
at 162; Kommers D. P, The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany
(2nd edn, Duke University Press, 1997) at 46 .
Kennedy D., ‘Three Globalizations of Law and Legal Thought: 1850-2000’ in David M. Trubek &
Alvaro Santos (eds) The New Law And Economic Development 19, 25-71 (Cambridge University
Press, 2006).
Ibid
See, Alexy Infra (n 32)
Huang C. and David S. L, 'Proportionality Review of Administrative Action in Japan, Korea,
Taiwan, and China' in Francesca Bignami and David Zaring (eds), Research Handbook in
Comparative Law and Regulation (Edward Elgar 2014) at 13; Beatty Infra (n 38); Mathews (n 14 )
; Ledford K. F., 'Formalizing the Rule of Law in Prussia: The Supreme Administrative Law Court
(1876–1914)' (2004) 37 Central European History 203 at 210 (Noting that Judicial review positions
judges as the foremost protectors of individual rights in ensuring defense against administrative
overreach.)
Cottier T., Echandi R, Leal-Arcas R, Liechti R, Payosova T and Sieber-Gasser C. 'The Principle of
Proportionality in International Law' (2012) Working Paper No 2012/38, 4
<https://www.wti.org/media/filer_public/9f/1b/9f1bd3cf-dafd-4e14-b07d-
a0c66b8f/proportionality_final_29102012_with_nccr_coversheet.pdf>accessed 1 December
; See also Mathews op.cit (n 18) 1, 22
Cohen-Eliya & Porat op.cit (n 16) at 285
Bücheler G., 'Proportionality as a General Principle of Law' in Proportionality in Investor-State
Arbitration (online edn, Oxford Academic 2015)
<https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198724339.003.0003> accessed 1 December 2024
(proportionality entails evaluating the extent of the infringement on individual freedom against the
advantages conferred by the corresponding state measure.)
Barak Infra (n 35) 1; See also Petersen N, Proportionality and Judicial Activism: Fundamental
Rights Adjudication in Canada, Germany, and South Africa (Cambridge University Press, 2017)
-69
The Canadian Supreme Court generally identifies three core elements in the proportionality test:
(1) measures must be carefully designed to achieve their objective without being arbitrary, unfair,
or irrational; (2) they should impair the right or freedom as minimally as possible; and (3) there
must be a balance between the restriction’s effects and the objective’s importance.
Alexy R., ‘Constitutional Rights and Proportionality’ (2014) 22 Revus 51-65.
Ibid
Ibid
Barak A., 'Proportionality and Principled Balancing' (2010) 4 Law & Ethics of Human Rights 1
Ibid
Ibid
Beatty D. M. The Ultimate Rule of Law (Oxford University Press 2004).
Ibid .
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Kumm M, 'Constitutional Rights as Principles: On the Structure and Domain of Constitutional
Justice' (2004) 2 International Journal of Constitutional Law 574.
Kumm Ibid (n 45).
Kumm Ibid (n 45).
Moller K, The Global Model of Constitutional Rights (Oxford University Press 2012).
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Alexy op.cit (n 32); Moller op.cit (n 48).
Alexy op.cit (n 32)
Moller op.cit (n 48)
Alexy op.cit (n 32)
Beatty op.cit (n 38)
Bomhoff J, Balancing Constitutional Rights: The Origins and Meanings of Post-War Legal
Discourse (Cambridge University press, 2013) Meanings of Postwar Legal Discourse
R v Oakes Infra (n 69)
R v Oakes Infra (n 69)
Case No. CCT 3/2000. < www.saflii.org> accessed 1 December 2024
Ibid.
[2013] UKSC 39.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid
Ibid.
The approach laid down in Oakes determines whether a state measure is necessary based on “1)
whether the objective of the measure is sufficiently important to justify the limitation of a protected
right, (2) whether the measure is rationally connected to the objective, (3) whether a less intrusive
measure could have been used without unacceptably compromising the achievement of the
objective, and (4) whether, balancing the severity of the measure’s effects on the rights of the
persons to whom it applies against the importance of the objective, to the extent that the measure
will contribute to its achievement, the former outweighs the latter.” See, R v Oakes [1986] 1 SCR
Case No. CCT 3/2000 op.cit (n 60)
Enmund v. Florida (1982) 458 U.S. 782
Tison v. Arizona (1987) 481 U.S. 137
Graham v. Florida (2010)560 U.S. 48, 59
Shinar A., ‘Method and Culture in American Constitutional Law: A Critique of Proportionality and
Constitutional Culture’ (2014) 10 Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies 137, 142 .
R v Oakes op.cit (n 69)
Doré v Barreau du Quebec, [2012] 1 SCR 395
[2015] 1 SCR 613
S v Zuma (1995) 4 BCLR 401 (CC). (In this case, the Court invalidated the presumption in the
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 that a confession made or confirmed to a magistrate and reduced
to writing by the magistrate or in the presence of a magistrate was made freely and voluntarily.)
S v Zuma Ibid (n 78) at 419.
S v Makwanyane 1995 3 SA 391 (CC).
Ibid par 104.
Ibid par 104.
Weems v. United States (1910) 217 U.S. 349
Alexy R. A Theory of Constitutional Rights (OUP Julian Rivers Trans; 2010)
Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow (2004) 542 U.S. 1
See Aharon B. Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitation (Cambridge University
Press, 2012)
See Vicki C. J ‘Constitutional Law in an Age of Proportionality’ (2015) 124 Yale Law Journal 3094
Ibid at 3099
Ibid
See Möller K. ‘Proportionality and Rights Inflation’ In: Huscroft G, Miller BW, Webber G. (eds)
Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning (Cambridge University Press;
155-6, 167.
See generally, Matti S. 'Exploring Public Policy Legitimacy Simon Matti A Study of Belief-System
Correspondence in Swedish Environmental Policy' (DPhil thesis, Luleå University of Technology
1
Möller op.cit (n 90) 156
Ibid 156
Ibid 156; See also Cottier et al op.cit (n 27) 18
Cottier et al op.cit (n 27) 4
Ibid 17
Vicki op.cit (n 87) 3100
In some jurisdictions, particularly in Canada, the balancing test is often set aside and not employed,
even as a measure of last resort. Critics of this view argue that the central question, namely, the
'balancing question' holds greater significance, and that it is frequently obscured or inadequately
addressed within the steps of the Oakes test. This omission, they assert, undermines the clarity and
effectiveness of the adjudicative process. It is preferred however, that this critical inquiry should be
explicitly reserved for the final stage of the analysis, where it can receive the focused attention it
merits. The earlier steps, it is believed, should serve primarily to eliminate weak justificatory
arguments, thus refining and narrowing the scope of the ultimate evaluation. This method,
essentially, ensures that the balancing of values is both transparent and methodologically sound in
contributing to a more reasoned and principled adjudicatory process. See Reaume D. ‘Limitations
on Constitutional Rights: The Logic ́ of Proportionality’ (2009) University of Oxford Legal
Research Paper Series, Paper No. 26/2009 at 26; See also Grimm op.cit (n 19) 383.
Brazil-Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres, WT/DS332/AB/R (December 3 2007) par
(The Appellate Body acknowledged the importance of considering a measure's policy goal as
part of the necessity analysis).
Sweet A. S., 'Investor-State Arbitration: Proportionality’s New Frontier' (2010) Yale Law
School, Faculty’s Scholarship Series, Paper 69, New Haven, (2010), at 2. However, Horwitz argues
that the appropriate institution to undertake such an inquiry should be the legislature and not the
court. See Horwitz M. J. The Transformation of American Law 1870–1960 at 142
Sweet & Mathews op.cit (n 14) 89
Cottier et al op.cit (n 27) 5 (Noting that the supposedly objective process of weighing and
balancing interests inherent in the three-tier proportionality test risks sidelining critical moral and
value judgments, potentially undermining the protection of human rights.)
Department of justice, government of Hong kong 'The principle of proportionality and the
concept of margin of appreciation in human rights law' (2020) at 1
<https://www.doj.gov.hk/en/publications/pdf/basiclaw/basic15_2.pdf>accessed 1 December 2024
(Noting that “[t]he proportionality test may require the reviewing court to assess the balance that
the decision maker has struck, not merely whether it is within the range of rational or reasonable
decisions.”)
Lurie op.cit (n 14) 176 citing Ariel L. Bendor, Tal Sela, ‘How proportional is proportionality?’
(2015) 13 International Journal of Constitutional Law 530–544.
For an extensive discussion on the priority of rights, or its lack thereof, see Heine, K., &
Quintavalla, A. ‘Priorities and Human Rights’ (2019) 23 The International Journal of Human
Rights 679-697
[1997-98] 1 GLR 611
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid at 629-630
Ibid.
Ibid. at 630.
Ibid at 630
Ibid at 635
Ibid.
Ibid at 635
[2010] SCGLR 575
Ibid.
Ibid at 609
Ibid.
Ibid at 609-610
Ibid. at 610
[2017] GHASC 18.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
[2019] GHASC 29.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Beatty op.cit (n 38)
[2022] GHASC 99.
Revenue Administration Act, 201(Act 915).
Afrifa v. Ghana Revenue Authority op.cit (n 133) 10
Ibid 12
Ibid 13
Ibid 14
Ibid 8
Ibid 17
Ibid 10-22
Ibid. 27-34
Richard Amo-hene v Ghana Revenue Authority & 2 Others Infra (n 149)18
Ibid 15-23
Ibid. 31-33
Ibid 25
High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2004 (C.I 47), Order 54, rule 4
Ibid.
[2022] GHASC 103 (30 November 2022).
Ibid 1-12
Ibid 1-12
Afrifa v. Ghana Revenue Authority op.cit (n 133) 15
Ibid 11
Ibid 23
[2024] GHASC 303
Ibid 64
Ibid 73-75
Civil and Local Government Staff Association of Ghana [CLOSAG] v The Attorney-General
& Others op.cit (n 124).
Osae v. Food and Drugs Authority op.cit (n 155) 56.
