The Supreme Court in Accra on Wednesday ruled that there were constitutional issues that needed to be addressed in the Power Purchasing Agreement (PPA) between the Government of Ghana and Balkan Energy Company LLC.
The LLC on July 27, 2007 signed a PPA with the Government of Ghana including issues bordering on the Osagyefo Badge.
Delivering its ruling, the Court ordered the Fast Track High Court to stay proceedings pending the determination by it.
The Court further ordered its Registrar to place the case docket before a panel that would be appointed to go into the matter.
According to the Supreme Court there were questions as to whether or not the PPA between the Government of Ghana and Balkan Energy Limited constituted an International business transaction under Article 181 (5) of the Constitution.
It also maintained that there were questions as to whether or not the arbitration provisions between Ghana Government and Balkan Energy Company Limited constituted an international business transaction under article 181(5) of the Constitution.
These questions, the Court noted, needed to be referred to it for determination.
Government in June 2010 proceeded to court to seek an injunction against Balkan Energy Company LLC, Balkan Energy (Ghana) Limited and Mr Philip David Elders, their agents, their affiliates from instituting or proceeding arbitration proceedings or other proceedings against government outside the jurisdiction of Ghana in relation to the PPA.
This was after the Balkan Energy Limited had gone for arbitration.
Government had sued Balkan Energy Company LLC and Mr Elders jointly and severally for damages for fraudulent misrepresentation.
This was because the said agreement did not meet the requirement for Parliamentary approval.
At the FTC, the state was seeking a declaration that the PPA made on July 27, 2007 constituted an international transaction which infringed on Article 181 (5) of the 1992 Constitution.
It was further seeking a declaration that some clauses of the PPA constituted an International business transaction.
The state therefore prayed the FTC to refer the matter to the SC since there were some constitutional issues that needed to be addressed.
The FTC ruled out that the state assertion. However the state appealed at the SC on the basis that the FTC was usurping its (SC’s) jurisdiction under Article 130 (2).