The dismissal of the interlocutory injunction on the e-levy filed by three Minority Members of Parliament, according to Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame, has supported his argument that the writ was factually unclear.
According to him, the petitioners’ arguments were a jumble of supposition that failed to show any irregularity in the passing of the e-levy and hence did not merit a grant of their plea.
Read also: supreme-court-to-hear-minoritys suit-against-e-levy-implementation-today
He made a dig at the Minority for appearing in court without proof.
“…You don’t go to court based on supposition and speculation; you go to court based on solid proof….
He stated, “The petitioners were unable to demonstrate any type of impropriety…”
“I’m completely satisfied with the court’s decision,” he stated. I’m pleased with the conclusion, and I’m pleased that the court has agreed with our assessment of the application. It is critical to note that the court found that the applicant had established no irregularities, and that everything appeared to be in order in the Parliamentary proceedings in question, which we have demonstrated through the processes that we had filed.”
In the meantime, Haruna Iddrisu, the Minority Leader in Parliament, has called the Supreme Court’s decision to the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) to maintain e-levy records pending the outcome of the substantive case “refreshing and uplifting.”
The Supreme Court ordered the GRA to preserve proper records of all e-levy deductions so that payees might receive a refund if the law is later found to be illegal.
The Supreme Court has yet to hear the writ filed by three members of the Minority, namely Minority Leader Haruna Iddrisu, Bawku Central MP Mahama Ayariga, and North Tongu MP Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, on March 30, 2022, seeking to declare the passage of the E-Levy Act, 2022 (Act 1075) as unconstitutional and to have it set aside.
They are claiming the court’s original jurisdiction under Articles 2 (1) and 130 (1) of the constitution, as well as Supreme Court Rules 45 (1) and (2) (1996) C.I. 16.
