[ 2017-04-05 ]

Elikplim L. Agbemava has filed a suit seeking clarification about ex-gratia

Ex-gratia: Lawyer goes to Supreme Court
A private legal practitioner Elikplim L. Agbemava,
has filed a suit at the Supreme Court seeking
clarification on some of the benefits enjoyed by
Article 71 office holders as well as other public
servants in that category.

He also wants presidential staffers, who benefit
from salaries, allowances, and privileges almost
like an Article 71 office holders, to be stripped
off such gratuities claiming it “is inconsistent
with Article 71 and, therefore,
unconstitutional.”

Among others reliefs, Lawyer Agbemava of Fidelity
Law Group, wants to know why Article 71 office
holders as well as Members of Parliament, are
exempted from contributing to the Tier-1 basic
national social security scheme operated and
managed by the Social Security and National
Insurance Trust (SSNIT).

In the suit dated April 3, 2017, the lawyer
contends that payment of ex-gratia and pensions is
indefensible, excessive, unconscionable and
inconsistent with the real spirit and intendment
of the 1992 Constitution and therefore
unconstitutional.

According to him, such act is “contrary to the
National Pensions Act, 2008 as amended, and
Article 71 of the 1992 Constitution” adding that
because Members of Parliament (MPs) enjoy
ex-gratia from the state, it does not encourage
them to contribute to the social security scheme.

He argued that the enjoyment of retiring benefits
or awards by Member of Parliament on the basis of
a model that does not oblige Members of Parliament
to contribute to any pension insurance scheme,
during their years of service in Parliament before
drawing on public funds for the payment of their
pension is discriminatory against all other public
sector workers employees in Ghana, unfair,
unconscionable and contrary to Article 17 of the
constitution and therefore unconstitutional.

He seeks a declaration that on a true and proper
interpretation of Articles 17, 98 (1), and 71 of
the 1992 Constitution, the approval by the
President on the recommendation of the Committee
set up under Article 71 of payment and receipt
every four years by MPs who are still serving,
continue or intend to continue in Parliament for
more than one four-year term of gratuity in the
form of ex-gratia and pensions is indefensible,
excessive, unconscionable and inconsistent with
the real spirit and intendment of the 1992
Constitution and, therefore, unconstitutional.

The lawyer in his reliefs is also seeking “a
declaration that on true and proper interpretation
of Articles 98(1), 95 (6), 44 (2) and (3), 155
(1), 68 (4), 194 (5), 187 (14), 199, 203 (3)(c),
208 (3) (c), 233 (1) and 71 of the 1992
Constitution, gratuity and pension is payable
under the 1992 constitution after a full and final
retirement of a public servant from public service
and not intermittently while he/she is still in
public service”.

Source - thefinderonline

... go Back