Ghana Supreme Court National Cathedral Funding Lawsuit: Citizen Challenges Legality, AG Disputes Unconstitutionality

Published: November 12, 2025 | Updated with latest developments on Ghana’s public finance controversies.

Introduction

In a landmark constitutional challenge shaking Ghana’s public finance landscape, citizen Jonathan Amable has filed a suit at the Supreme Court contesting the government’s funding of the National Cathedral project. The case questions whether allocations from the Consolidated Fund for the National Cathedral violated Article 179(11) of the 1992 Constitution due to lack of prior approval from the Speaker of Parliament and the Chairperson of the Council of State. This National Cathedral funding Ghana Supreme Court dispute revives pre-2024 election tensions, where opposition figures accused former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta of unconstitutional spending.

The Attorney-General (AG), Dr. Dominic Ayine, has countered these claims, asserting that budgets from 2018 to 2021 provided parliamentary approval. Beyond the cathedral, Amable targets Ghana’s statutory borrowing framework under the Bank of Ghana Act and Public Financial Management Act, alleging inconsistencies with Article 181. This suit highlights critical issues in Ghana Constitution public expenditure oversight, offering lessons on transparency in national projects.

Analysis

This section breaks down the core arguments in the Supreme Court Ghana National Cathedral case, providing a pedagogical overview of Ghana’s constitutional provisions on public funds and borrowing.

Plaintiff’s Core Claims on National Cathedral Funding

Jonathan Amable, from Unity Lodge, Anloga in the Volta Region, argues that funds disbursed from the Consolidated Fund for the National Cathedral were unconstitutional. Under Article 179(2) of the 1992 Constitution, all government expenditures must be submitted to Parliament as classified estimates in appropriation bills for transparency. The Contingencies Vote, used for unclassified “Other Government Obligations,” falls under Article 179(11), requiring approval from a committee comprising the President, Speaker of Parliament, and Chairperson of the Council of State.

Amable contends that former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta’s admission of using Contingencies Vote funding confirms the violation, as no such committee approval occurred. He seeks declarations that the expenditure was illegal and orders for refunds by all recipients to the State. This echoes 2022 parliamentary scrutiny, where Ofori-Atta faced a censure motion over the same issue.

Attorney-General’s Defense Strategy

In a July 2025 statement of defense, the AG maintains that National Cathedral funding was embedded in approved annual budgets and Appropriation Acts from 2018 to 2021, negating any breach. The AG requests dismissal of Amable’s pleas, marking a shift from the National Democratic Congress (NDC) minority’s 2022 stance, which criticized the spending during Ofori-Atta’s hearings.

Challenges to Ghana’s Borrowing Framework

Amable extends his suit to statutory instruments, claiming Sections 30 of the Bank of Ghana Act (Act 612, as amended), 61 of the Public Financial Management Act (Act 921), and Regulations 105, 108, 109(2) of L.I. 2378 conflict with Article 181(3), (4), and (6). These articles mandate parliamentary ratification of loan terms, including interest rates and debt holder rights. He specifically impugns the US$10 billion COVID-19 Relief Bond between the Ministry of Finance and Bank of Ghana as an unauthorized asset purchase.

The AG rebuts, affirming the provisions’ constitutionality, consistent with prior minority critiques led by Cassiel Ato Forson and Mahama Ayariga.

Procedural Next Steps

The Supreme Court awaits memoranda of issues before scheduling a full hearing, underscoring the judiciary’s role in enforcing fiscal accountability in Ghana.

Summary

The Ghana National Cathedral lawsuit pits citizen Jonathan Amable against the state, alleging unconstitutional funding via Contingencies Vote without Article 179(11) approval and flawed borrowing laws breaching Article 181. The AG defends with evidence of parliamentary budget approvals from 2018-2021. This case could redefine oversight of major projects like the National Cathedral and public debt instruments, including the COVID-19 Relief Bond.

Key Points

Practical Advice

For Ghanaians interested in public finance accountability, this case offers actionable insights into engaging the legal system pedagogically.

How Citizens Can Challenge Public Spending

Review the 1992 Constitution’s Chapter 13 (Public Funds) before filing suits. Gather evidence like budget documents from Parliament’s website. Consult legal aid via the Legal Aid Scheme for constitutional writs under Article 2(1) or 130.

Monitoring Government Budgets

Access Appropriation Acts on Ministry of Finance site. Track Contingencies Vote usage in mid-year fiscal reviews. Join civil society groups like IMANI Africa for alerts on projects like the National Cathedral.

Understanding Borrowing Transparency

Parliament ratifies loans per Article 181; verify terms in Hansards. Use Freedom of Information Act requests for bond details like the COVID-19 Relief Bond.

Points of Caution

While empowering, such litigation requires nuance to avoid pitfalls.

Avoid Political Overtones

The National Cathedral debate fueled 2024 campaigns; courts prioritize legal merits over partisan views, as seen in AG’s positional shift post-election.

Pending Judicial Outcomes

No ruling exists yet; speculating on refunds or precedents risks misinformation. Await Supreme Court judgment for binding interpretations of Article 179 and 181.

Fiscal Impact Considerations

Refunds could strain ongoing projects; balanced scrutiny ensures sustainable development without halting legitimate expenditures.

Comparison

Comparing this suit to prior episodes illustrates evolving accountability in Ghana public financial management.

2022 Parliamentary Censure vs. 2025 Supreme Court Suit

In November 2022, Parliament grilled Ken Ofori-Atta on National Cathedral spending, with NDC minority alleging breaches. Ofori-Atta cited Contingencies Vote; no censure passed. Amable’s suit escalates to judiciary, seeking enforceable declarations unlike legislative debates.

COVID-19 Bond Echoes Minority Critiques

Ato Forson and Ayariga questioned Bank of Ghana financing in 2018-2021; Supreme Court later ruled aspects unconstitutional in related cases. Amable’s challenge mirrors this, targeting specific statutes.

Broader Precedents

Similar to New Patriotic Party (NPP) challenges on NDC spending, this underscores non-partisan constitutional enforcement.

Legal Implications

If Amable prevails, implications for Ghana Constitution Article 179 and Article 181 are profound and verifiable via precedents.

Precedent for Contingencies Vote

Ruling could mandate committee approvals for all unclassified spends, curbing executive discretion on projects like the National Cathedral.

Borrowing Ratification Standards

Striking impugned provisions would require Parliament to approve loan terms explicitly, enhancing transparency for bonds and debts.

Refund Mechanisms

Courts have ordered recoveries in past fiscal suits (e.g., Supreme Court on double salaries); applicable here if violations proven.

No speculation: Outcomes hinge on evidence, per Article 296 on administrative fairness.

Conclusion

The National Cathedral asset allocation Supreme Court Ghana case exemplifies citizen-driven enforcement of fiscal discipline. By dissecting Article 179(11) and 181, it educates on balancing development ambitions with constitutional safeguards. As the Supreme Court prepares for hearings, stakeholders must prioritize evidence-based discourse. This lawsuit reinforces Ghana’s democratic maturity, ensuring public funds serve transparent, approved purposes. Stay informed for rulings that could reshape national budgeting.

FAQ