The Supreme Court has dismissed a suit challenging government’s decision to provide support for the construction of a National Cathedral.
The suit was filed by a member of the Convention People’s Party, CPP, Kwabena Bomfeh popularly known as Kabilla.
The unanimous decision of the seven member panel presided over by Justice Sophia Adinyira said the case filed by Kwabena Bomfeh raises no legitimate issue requiring enforcement and interpretation.
The court also indicated that the state has not excessively entangled itself in religious activities by supporting the project.
The court therefore held, that nothing prohibits the government from lending support to any religious group.
James Kwabena Bomfeh, in March 2017 invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, arguing that Ghana was a secular state, and therefore, it was wrong for the state to be excessively entangled in any religion or religious practice.
In the suit, he prayed the apex court to declare the building of the National Cathedral and state involvement in Hajj unconstitutional.
He further sought a declaration that the decision of the Government of Ghana to purposely endorse, assist, and partly sponsor the construction of a National Cathedral amounts to an excessive entanglement of the Republic of Ghana in religion and therefore unconstitutional.
The judgement was read by the presiding justice, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyera. Other members of the panel were Justice Jones Dotse, Justice Anin Yeboah, Justice Sule Gbadegbe, Mrs. Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo and Justice A. A. Benin.
Reacting to the decision of the Supreme court’s judgment, on a private radio station in Accra, ‘Adom FM’, the acting General Secretary of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), James Kwabena Bomfeh aka Kabila, who filed the suit at the Apex court, says he has accepted in good faith, the decision of the Supreme Court .
His argment was that Ghana being a secular state, it was therefore wrong for the state to be “excessively entangled in any religion or religious practice”
But the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision on Wednesday, held that the decision of the state had not breached any constitutional provision.
He explained that he is not against the construction of a temple for God; rather, his actions were meant to ensure that all religious sects were given equal opportunity.
He stressed, however, that his stance on the country being a secular state would not change and as such, he finds it wrong that the state has “excessively entangled itself in any religion or religious practice”.