Introduction
The integration of customary law into modern legislation has been a longstanding challenge for many African countries, with several nations grappling to reconcile traditional practices with contemporary governance framework. Countries like Botswana, South Africa and Uganda have shown relative commitment in codifying customary law into national statutes, balancing tradition with modernity. Nonetheless, their experiences highlight the complexities and nuances involved.
By way of example, Botswana’s Tribal Land Act, 1968, enacted about fifty-seven years ago, codified customary land practices into national legislation. Being determined to recognize customary law in contemporary times, the current Botswana Tribal Act of 2018 which repealed the 1968 Act[1] specifically made provision for customary law under Part VI of the Act.[2] South African’s Recognition of Customary Marriages Act, 1998 ensured spousal equality.[3] Uganda’s Land Act,1998 as amended by the Land (Amendment) Acts of 2004 and 2010 sought to formalize customary land rights through Certificate of Customary Ownership,[4] but implementation has been complex - the country’s land governance system continue to face challenges in balancing traditional and modern systems.
In contrast, Ghana’s Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036) presents a groundbreaking approach to incorporating customary law into its land governance framework, offering a beacon of hope for other African countries seeking to harmonize tradition with modernity. By explicitly recognizing and incorporating customary law principles, Ghana’s Land Act provides a model for how African countries can navigate the complexities of customary law and modern legislation, promoting a more inclusive and equitable land governance system.
This article examines the innovative approach of Ghana’s Land Act, highlighting how it integrates customary law into modern legislation, and explores the implications for land governance in Ghana and beyond. Possible challenges associated with the measure have been adequately interrogated. It is therefore the expectation of the author that Ghana’s Land Act can be leveraged as a model of a modern legislation which upholds the values of customary law for other jurisdictions faced with the challenges of dual legal systems to emulate.
How Customary Law Principles Have Been Integrated Into The Land Act
a. Customary law Interests
In Part One of the Act, most of the sections have traces of customary law. Section 1 of the Act begins with the recognition of various customary law interests such as the allodial title, customary law freehold, usufructuary interest and customary tenancy, which are discussed in sections 2, 3, 5 and 7 respectively.
The impact of Act 1036 on the above provisions is visibly reckoned in respect of usufructuary interest and customary tenancy under sections 5 and 7 respectively.
Traditionally, usufructuary interest was held by the subjects of the stool or skin or the allodial holder.[5] However, upon the enactment of the Land Act, non-indigenes who have lived on land for a period of not less than fifty years acquired usufuctuary interest.[6] The Act recognizes the reality of urban settlements in places like Madina, Nima and Sukura in Accra, and Fante New Town, Aboabo, Moshie Zongo and Anloga in Kumasi, where non-indigene residents have lived their lives for generations and contributed to the communities. By allowing non-indigenes to hold usufructuary interest in land, the law was responding to the societal needs and modern realities; acknowledging the complexities of urban land ownership and use.
Under section 7, the original concept of customary tenancy where the landlord shared the proceeds of the farm with the tenants[7] is now recognized as an interest in land, which may be created by a contract. The parties can now agree on their own terms, such as the payment of rent, the sharing of the farm produce or the physical partition or severance of the farm or the land. The modification of the customary law principle demonstrates the flexibility in customary law and its ability to adapt to social change.
b. Prohibition of the Creation of a Freehold interest in a Customary Entity
Section 9 (1) deals with the vesting of stool, skin, clan or family land in the appropriate customary entity. The constitutional preclusion in respect of the creation of freehold interest in stool or skin land[8] is extended to clan and family lands. In a way, the provision ensures uniformity for all the recognized customary land-holding entities.
The constitutional/statutory prohibition of the creation of a freehold interest in a land held by a customary land-holding entity does not affect the inherent right of the subjects’ usufructuary interest in a vacant portion of the entity’s land.[9] The section reinforces customary law’s resilience to guarantee the rights of the subjects of the allodial owner even when statutory rights have been extinguished.
c. Prohibition of Discriminatory Practices
In section 11, the need for a decision or practice affecting land under customary tenure to accord with the customs, traditions and practices of the community, devoid of discrimination, is accentuated. The provision represents the determination by Parliament to align customary practices with the constitutional protection of nondiscrimination under Article 18, promoting equality and fairness in land ownership and use.
d. Customary Land Management
The whole of Part Two, starting from section 13 to section 22 is dedicated to Customary Land Management.
- Accountability of Fiduciaries: In section 13, Heads of the various customary land holding entities are deemed fiduciaries charged with the management of their lands.[10] The neglect or the failure of a fiduciary to render account has been criminalized.[11] Besides, while the Head of Family Accountability Act, 1985 (PNDCL 114) elicited accountability from Heads of Families, there was no corresponding legislation affecting occupants of Stools or Skins, and the Heads of Clans. It was therefore a welcome step when the section was introduced into the Land Act to exact accountability from all fiduciaries of customary land-holding entities including Stools, Skins and Clans. Undeniably, the law maker acted in pursuance of the constitutional demands placed on it under Article 36 (8).
- Establishment of Customary Land Secretariat: Sections 14 to 18 establish the creation and management of Customary Land Secretariat for customary land-holding entities. To inject some sanity into customary law transactions and reduce the incidence of double sales of land, the Act provides for the creation of Customary Land Secretariat by the various customary landholding entities. In a way, this was to ensure that customary law transactions in land are recorded to reduce disputes over land acquisition.
- Land Reserved for Common Use: The need for communities to reserve land for the use of its members is covered under section 19. This is intended to regulate the wanton dissipation of communal lands and their developments with due regard to the future generation. The provision, in a sense, ensures some form of inter-generational equity.
- Disposal of Stool or Skin Land : Under section 20, the use of a Stool or Skin land under customary law is assured, subject to Article 267 of the 1992 Constitution.[12] The essence of subjecting the use of a Stool or Skin land to the provisions of Article 267 (3) is essentially for the planning of the area concerned.
- Restrictions on the use of customary Land : Restrictions regarding the disposal of natural resources and their exploitation in lands owned by customary entities are dealt with in sections 21 and 22 of Act 1036 respectively.
e. Oral Grant Under Customary Law As An Exception To The Requirement of Writing
Like section 3 of the repealed Conveyancing Act, 1973 (NRCD 175), an oral grant under customary law is recognized as an exception to the requirement of writing for the transfer of an interest in land under section 36 (1) (h).
f. Exemptions from Payment of Stamp Duty
Section 37 (7) provides that the recording of an oral grant of an interest in land under customary law[13] is exempted from the payment of stamp duty. It is equally stated under section 103 (4) that where a customary land holding entity applies for registration of an allodial title, the instrument relating to the application for the registration of the land shall be exempted from the payment of stamp duty. This measure is a smart move by the lawmaker to incentivize allodial title and customary land holders to record and register their interests in land.
g. Implied Covenants in Respect of Customary Lands under Section 50
- Automatic Renewal of Leases Executed by A Customary Entity: Under section 50 (9) of section 50, a lease of a bare land executed by an allodial owner or usufructuary holder to an indigene lessee who has developed it for residential purposes, commercial or industrial property or farmed perennial crops on the land shall be subject to automatic renewal of the lease upon expiry. This provision is vital as it has the tendency to unlock economic potentials and encourage investment in properties and businesses for the benefit of the community and the economy at large.
- Terms of a Lease Upon Renewal: Subsection (14) of Section 50 subjects a renewal of a lease aforementioned to the original terms of the lease and any new terms agreed upon by the parties. Under subsections (15) and (16) of section 50, disputes arising out of the renewal of the lease are to be resolved through Alternative Dispute Resolutions Act, 2010 (Act 798) before resorting to a court action. The above provisions are intended to ensure some level of fairness to the parties. The law guarantees the automatic renewal of leases, perhaps due to the fact that the land would have improved through the effort of the lessee. However, while the law takes the interest of the lessee into consideration, it also recognizes the fact that by the time the lease expires, inflation would have set in to render the consideration paid valueless, hence, the assurance of the automatic renewal of the lease and at the same time, the entitlement of the parties to add new terms to the original terms to reflect their new circumstances.
- No Duration Required in a Conveyance of A Usufructuary Interest: Subsection (19) of section 50 does not permit a conveyance of a usufructuary interest to specify the duration of the interest, but provides for the holder of the usufructuary interest to subject to the customs and traditions of the area where the land is situated. Ordinarily under customary law, usufructuary interest is acquired for an indeterminate period, so far as the holder does not deny the title of the allodial owner. The provision reechoes the customary law position so that a conveyance of a usufructuary interest would not be limited in duration. The insistence of the law maker that grantees of usufructuary interest abide by the customs and traditions of the area where the land is situated is ample demonstration that Act 1036 never intended to upset the foundations of customary law principles.
- Written Consent of Allodial Owners in the Alienation of a Usufructuary Interest to A Person Not Entitled To The Interest: The holder of a usufructuary interest, under subsection (20) of section 50 is prohibited from alienating an interest in the land to a person who is not entitled to the interest, unless the written consent of the allodial owner has been obtained and adequate payment made to the said allodial owner.[14] While customary law is oral in nature, the need for the consent of the allodial owner in writing in the alienation of a usufructuary interest to a person who is not entitled to it typifies the ease of customary law’s adaptability to social change.
- Taking Over Bare or Farm Land Occupied By A Usufruct Upon the Expansion of A Town or Settlement: Subsection 21 of section 50 empowers the holder of an allodial title to take over bare land or farm land occupied by a person with a usufructuary interest within the area covered by the allodial title upon the expansion of the town or settlement. The takeover of a bare or farm land by an allodial title holder must be for the purpose of serving the communal interest of the beneficiaries of the allodial title.
Before an allodial holder can take over the land of a usufruct farmer or holder, a fair and adequate compensation of not less than forty percent of the plots of land or their market value must be paid promptly to the usufruct.[15] The law permits a suitable alternative land to be provided to the usufruct where possible.[16]
The increase in population and expansion of human settlement make it imperative that bare or farmlands are recovered by the allodial holder for settlement and habitation. It has been observed that most allodial owners take over lands occupied by usufructs arbitrarily.[17] Therefore, the provision is intended to strike a proper balance between the allodial holder who actually owns the land and the usufruct who for many years, took care of the land for the allodial owner and protected it from encroachers.
h. Customary Law Acquisitions Now Recognized as Good Title
Under section 64 (1) (d), title derived from an acquisition under customary law, which hitherto was not recognized as good title,[18] is now a reliable elevator to the floor of good title. The inclusion of oral acquisitions under customary law as a good title is a strong statement made by customary law that it is a force to reckon with.
It is worth pointing out that while registration of one’s interest under the law guarantees the indefeasibility of his title under section 119 of Act 1036, it pales into insignificance when a right or acquisition under customary law is involved. It is seen from section 121 (1) (a) and (f) that indefeasibility of registration of title to land is overridden by a customary right granted under specific legislations[19] subsisting prior to the first registration and a right acquired under customary law over land in which the person is in actual occupation respectively.[20]
Per the above provisions, it is apparent that customary law has maintained its place of pride under Act 1036 so far as title to land is concerned.
i. Conveyances Executed by Customary Entities
Section 68 (9) stipulates that a conveyance is deemed to have been executed by a customary entity if the instrument was executed by the individuals whose consent and concurrence is required under customary law to be able to bind the customary entity concerned.
The provision underscores the requirement of consent from the principal elders and members of customary land owning entity in the alienation of land. The need for such consent underpins, to a greater extent, the democratic nature of customary law. In the past, a conveyance executed by the occupant of a stool with the consent of the minority of the councilors or elders of the stool did not render the transaction void.[21] However, Act 1036 now demands the consent from all the individuals whose consent is required under customary law to execute the conveyance before it can assume the mark of validity.
j. The Need to State Payment Made For Customary Obligation in A Conveyance Executed By A Customary Entity
It is provided under section 69 (3) that in a conveyance by a customary entity, payment made for customary obligations must be stated and that will constitute sufficient evidence of the performance of the customary obligations.
This section also highlights the introduction of writing into customary transactions and the modification of the performance of a customary obligation by way of monetary payment.
k. Titles and Interest
Section 81 (1) enumerates the registrable interests in land which include various customary law interests such as allodial title, customary law freehold, usufructuary interest and customary tenancies.
In Section 83, we discover that the various customary entities are capable of registering their titles as the allodial owners, holders of a customary law freehold, holders of usufructuary interest, holders of a lease of not less than three years and holders of customary tenancy.
l. Power of the Land Registrar To Refuse The Registration of A LargeScale Disposition by a Customary Entity
Section 102 (3) confers power on the Land Registrar not to register large-scale dispositions of a customary entity unless the Regional Lands Commission has granted consent and concurrence to the disposition. In a way, the provision protects and preserves lands of customary entities for future generations.
m. Local Plan of Land Submitted by District Assemblies Does Not Apply To Lands Owned By Communal Entities
District Assemblies are required by Section 117 to submit to the Regional Lands Commission copies of the local plan for the area in respect of which application for registration may be made. A parcel of land registered contrary to the provision is void.[22]
However, the requirement for compliance with the local plan for registration of land under the section is inapplicable to the registration of the allodial title of the customary land-holding entities and usufructs.[23]
Under the provision, the uniqueness of lands and interests therein held by customary entities is manifest.
n. Registration of Land Held By Customary Entities
Section 182 permits customary entities to be registered as proprietors of land.25 The customary entities registering their allodial title or interest evidenced by an instrument shall attach an approved plan of the land before the application for registration can be processed.[24] An allodial title holder interested in registering its title is required to demarcate, survey and prepare a plan of that land with the approval of the Director of Survey and Mapping Division.27 No allodial title holder is permitted by law to dispose of interest in its land in a registration district unless the whole land has been registered.[25]
The section underscores the need for occupants of Stools or Skins, or Heads of Families or Clans to obtain the requisite consent and concurrence of the members of the customary entity in the alienation of land by the customary entity.29 The Land Registrar is precluded from registering any disposition of land by a customary entity unless the requisite consent and concurrence of the members of that entity has been obtained together in compliance with the constitutional demands under Article 267 of the 1992 Constitution.[26]
o. Change of Persons Authorized to Grant Lands On Behalf Of Customary Entities
Section 183 states in unequivocal terms that a change of a person authorized to make a grant of land held by a customary entity such as the occupant of a Stool or Skin or the Head of a Family or Clan does not affect a prior grant. Such changes may occur where the person authorized to make the grant abdicates his office, is removed or deposed, dies or is in any way incapable of continuing to act in the capacity.
The law is that a stool is a corporate sole and its occupants who act on its behalf are deemed agents.[27] The individual may not be there, but the entity remains. As the Japanese say, the wind howls, but the mountain remains still. For that reason, under customary law where the appointment of the stool occupant is later invalidated, his contracts are not thereby invalidated.[28]
It is a common phenomenon in most communities of Ghana that when one Chief dies and another is installed or enskinned, he requests the documents of land granted by his predecessors and eventually fails to recognize them. The practice has become so notorious that such new Chiefs demand a whopping sum from the grantees. Sometimes, the amount demanded may even be more than the consideration originally paid by the purchasers to acquire the land. Purchasers who are unable to pay the amount demanded by the new chief often end up losing the land.
While customary law frowns on such despicable conducts, [29] the practice unfortunately is prevalent. It was therefore important that the legislature expressly made the practice illegal. By taking that step, the lawmaker was integrating customary law principles into Act 1036 to attend to the exigencies of the day.
p. Prohibition of Vesting Lands Belonging To Customary Entity
Section 268 makes it illegal for land owned by the various customary entities to be vested in the State. Section 270 enjoined the President to take steps to de-vest all vested lands. These provisions are intended to reverse lands held under customary tenure into their original state prior to the State exercising its coercive power to enact legislations to vest stool lands in the President.
Some Challenges Associated With The Integration
The integration of customary law principles into the Land Act comes with its own challenges and difficulties.
- In section 2, when the lawmaker recognized allodial title as the highest interest in land, it concentrated on how the title was acquired in the past and not how it can be acquired in contemporary times; particularly so, when some of the modes such as conquest, pioneer discovery and settlement are not possible in modern times. According to a Brazilian proverb, one who does not look ahead remains behind.
- In section 5, the law maker conferred on non-indigenes who have settled on land for a minimum of fifty years the right of usufructs. It however made no provision for settlers who have been on land for several decades but not up to fifty years. It is feared that such relatively long settlers might be ejected by the allodial owners so that they do not stay on the land till the fifty years to acquire the usufructuary right. The lawmaker could have included a provision in the section for the allodial owners to grant leases or other determinable interests to these settlers as an assurance of their reversionary interest in the land.
- Section 11 of the Land Act provides”
“Prohibition of discriminatory practice
11. A decision or practice in respect of land under customary tenure whether the land is individually or communally held shall be in accordance with the customs, traditions and practices of the community concerned but a decision or practice which discriminates on grounds of
- place of origin, ethnic origin, political opinions, colour, gender, occupation, religion or creed,
- disability, or (c ) social or economic status is void.”
Per the above section, discriminatory practices and decisions on various grounds are prohibited. While the provision is generally welcome, it appears to be inconsistent with the express provision of the Constitution and other provisions of the Land Act due to the inclusion of phrases “place of origin” and “ethnic origin” to the prohibited grounds. This is because customary law, recognized as a source of law in the Constitution [30] generally varies from community to community or place to place.[31]
It is respectfully submitted that the section should have been commenced with the phrase “Subject to the Constitution and this Act …” to bring it in harmony with the Constitution and other provisions of the Land Act. True to say, there are some provisions of the Land Act which confer rights on land users and grantees based on their background or place of origin. For instance, while section 9 (2) prohibits the creation of a freehold interest in a stool, skin, clan or family land, subsection (3) states clearly that the preclusion does not affect the subjects of that entity.36
Similarly, under section 50 (9), only lessees who are indigenes from the area where the land was situated are entitled to the automatic renewal of their leases. Then under subsection (10), it is only such lessees indignes from the area who are expected to discharge customary duties to the lessors.
In subsection (11), Ghanaian lessees who are not from the area the land is situated are only entitled to a renewal of the lease if there are no express terms in the lease forbidding the renewal.
In effect, lessees indigenes from the area where the land is situated, notwithstanding the terms of the lease are entitled to the automatic renewal of their lease, but with Ghanaian non-indigenes, the terms of the lease may not allow for the renewal.
- Under section 13, on the accountability of fiduciaries of customary land owning entities, the form and frequency of the accountability required were not clearly provided and this can make compliance of the law quite difficult. It is observed that the manner in which the offence has been created in section 13 (4) will make prosecution problematic if not impossible; because the ingredients of the offence should have been drawn from subsection (3) and not subsection (2) of section 13. According to a French proverb, a crooked stick will have a crooked shadow.
- Pertaining to the establishment of Customary Land Secretariat for the various customary landholding entities under sections 14 to 18, much education coupled with a strong political will are needed for the realization of the objective of the lawmaker.
- The requirement for an instrument conveying land of a customary land-holding entity to be executed by all the individuals whose consent under customary law is required appears to be onerous. It is feared that such consent may be difficult to come by. The possibility of some unscrupulous members of customary land-holding entities taking moneys from prospective purchasers and hiding behind the provision to perpetuate fraud on innocent purchasers who may not know all the individuals of the entity whose consent is required to validate a grant cannot be underestimated.
Where the customary land holding entity has a template for disposing of its land with specific individuals signing consistently to give their consent, the entity must be estopped from denying the transactions they executed.
Section 102 (3) which permits the Regional Lands Commission to refuse an application for registration of large-scale dispositions of land appears to be unconstitutional. The Constitution guarantees the right of a group or members to own and enjoy their property.[32] It is not for nothing that it vests stool lands in the appropriate Stool38 and not in the President or the Lands Commission. The Lands Commission is only entrusted with the management of public lands and lands vested in either the President or the Commission.[33] The Constitution further recognizes the Managers (heads) of the various customary landholding entities as fiduciaries and therefore accountable to the members of that customary entity.[34]
For the Lands Commission to be made to take decisions affecting “private properties”, exclusively held by a particular entity is an affront to the constitutional right of the members of that customary entity as acknowledged by Justice Acquah J.A. (as he then was) in Republic v. Regional Lands Officer, Ho, Ex Parte Kludze[35] that such an act is “ … not only misconceived in view of the plain language of article 295 (1) of the Constitution, 1992 but subversive of the constitutional rights of the individual to his family land.”
While section 270 (1) mandates the Lands Commission, within six months of the coming into force of the Land Act, to begin the process of evaluating all existing vested lands with the view to making recommendations to the President for the purpose of de-vesting those lands; it is almost five years since the Act came into force and the said de-vesting still hangs in the balance.
Conclusion
The Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036) stands out as a landmark legislative effort to bridge the long-standing divide between customary tenure systems and contemporary statutory frameworks. By codifying key principles of customary law, ensuring accountability of fiduciaries to the members, recognition of acquisition under customary law as a good title to land and consensus–based decision–making while embedding them within a modern, transparent registration and dispute-resolution architecture demonstrates that tradition and progress need not be mutually exclusive.
The Act thus signals a hopeful shift – a balanced pathway where heritage informs policy, and policy protects heritage – fostering sustainable development and social cohesions for generations to come. The success of the Act hinges on effective implementation: strengthening capacity of traditional authorities, ensuring public awareness and instituting safeguards against elite capture or marginalization of vulnerable groups. If these pillars are built, the Act could become a replicable template for other jurisdictions grappling with dual legal systems, proving that customary norms can be respected without compromising the certainty, security, and equity that modern land governance demands.
Far from being complacent, it is the hope of the author that Parliament will take a critical look at the sections of this innovative approach, amend the “problematic ones” so as to consolidate the gains and aspirations of our resilient customary landowning entities.
[1] See section 55 of the 2018 Act.
[2] See sections 26 to 28.
[3] See section 7 of the Act.
[4] Section 4 (1) of the Act provides: “Any person, family or community holding land under customary tenure on former public land may acquire a certificate of customary ownership in respect of that land in accordance with this
Act.”
[5] See Ohimen v. Adjei [1957] 2 WALR 275, 280.
[6] See section 5.
[7] See Akrofi v. Wiresi and Another [1957] 2 WALR 257; Manu v. Ainoo and Another [1976] 1 GLR 457 & Foli v. Ayirebi and Others [1966] GLR 627.
[8] See Article 267 (5) of the Constitution. 9 See section 9 (2).
[9] See section 9 (3).
[10] See subsection (2).
[11] See subsection (4).
[12] See Clause (3).
[13] Under section 37 of Act 1036.
[14] The consent of the allodial owner however is not to be unreasonably withheld.
[15] See section 50 (2).
[16] See subsection (22) (b).
[17] See Boateng (No. 2) v. Manu (No. 2) & Another [2007-2008] 2 SCGLR 1117 and Ejisu Stool & Another v. J.C.
Addai; Civil Appeal No. J4/32/2021, dated 15th December, 2021, S.C., Unreported.
[18] Under section 23 (5) of the Land Title Registration Law, 1986 (PNDCL 152), a good title was defined as a title founded on document (s) and it excluded customary law acquisitions.
[19] A customary right of a concession granted under the Concessions Act, 1962 (Act 124) and the Forest Act, 1927 (CAP 157).
[20] See Adolph Tetteh Adjei v. Anas Aremeyaw Anas & Holy Quaye; Civil App. No. J4/08/2025, dated 12th November 2025, S.C. (Unreported).
[21] In Richard Appiah-Nkyi v. Nana Achina Nuamah V.; Civil No. J4/42/2017, dated 31st January 2018, S.C. (Unreported), the Supreme Court held through Pwamang JSC that alienation of a stool land by the occupant of a stool with the minority of his councilors (elders) is not void but voidable. See also Owiredu v. Moshie (1952) 14 WACA 11 and Bassil v. Honger (1954) 14 WACA 569.
[22] See sections 117 (2) & (3).
[23] See subsection (3) of section 117. 25 See section 182 (1).
[24] See subsection (2) of section 182. 27 See subsection (3).
[25] See subsection (4). The only exceptions are where the remaining part of the land held by the allodial title holder falls (i) outside the title registration district or (ii) within an area affected by a land dispute. 29 See subsections (13) and (14).
[26] See subsection (14).
[27] Ababio v. Tutu [1962] 1 GLR 489.
[28] Amankwa v. Kyere [1963] 1 GLR 603. See also Republic v. Vanderpuye Orgle Estates [1998-99] SCGLR 677 at holding (1).
[29] Adomako Anane v. Nana Owusu Agyemang & Ors., Civil Appeal No. J4/42/2013, dated 26th February, 2014, the Supreme Court through Wood CJ held: “Customary law, detests, frowns upon and abhors dishonest or unjust gain, unjust enrichment, inequality, fraud, theft, roguery, collusion and the like.”
[30] See Article 11 (2).
[31] Article 11 (3) provides: “For the purpose of this article, ‘customary law’ means the rules of law which by custom are applicable to particular communities in Ghana.” 36 See also section 5 (2).
[32] See Article 18 (1) of the 1992 Constitution. 38 See Article 267 (1).
[33] See Article 258 (2).
[34] See Article 36 (8).
[35] [1997-98] 1 GLR 1028, 1037.