Natural Resource Law

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 2

222018992

Level 200 (Day)


Natural Resources Law

Question- Whether article 257(6) creates an enforceable trust.

There are different forms of trust namely, true trust which is trust
enforceable by the court, unenforceable trust which is a trust that is valid
but cannot be directly enforced by a beneficiary, enforceable trust which is
a valid trust that conforms with all requirements. Article 257(6) states that
‘Every mineral in its natural state in, under or upon any land in Ghana,
rivers, streams, water courses throughout Ghana, the exclusive economic
zone and any area covered by the territorial sea or continental shelf is the
property of the Republic of Ghana and shall be vested in the President on
behalf of, and in trust for the people of Ghana.’
This provision brings into effect the nature of a contract under
seal,whichexists between the citizens and the president as a trustee. What
then is a trust? A trust can be defined as the imposition of an equitable
obligation on a person who becomes a legal owner of the property or the
trustee. It requires the person to act in good conscience when dealing with
the property in favor of the beneficiary. It also refers to a fiduciary
relationship between a trustee and a beneficiary where property is heldby
oneparty for the benefit of another party. A trust iscreated by the owner,
also calledthe grantor or settlor who transfers property to a trustee.The
trustee holds thatproperty for the trust’s beneficiaries.The trust relationship
created between the president and the people of Ghana in the mineral
ownership has been determined as nominal and, therefore, not justiciable.
The assertion made above is explained in the case of Adjaye and
others v Attorney General, it was held according to Aryeetey J that article
257(6) cannot be used as grounds for the notion that shares held by the
government in the second defendant corporation are held in trust for the
people of Ghana. Furthermore, in the case of Tito v Waddell and others, it
was held that the word ‘trust’ with regards to the crown did not create a
trust enforceable by the courts. The trust created is centered on the
governmental obligation to keep the property in good conscience which is
unenforceable in court. Therefore, the plaintiff can not base his claim on
the existence of a trust relationship, he must also show its enforceability. If
the trust consists of just a governmental or presidential obligation, that
trust relationship is unenforceable.
Citizens' lack of power to question the president in the exercise
of mineral rights in court is a drawback for the principles of
constitutionalism, separation of powers, rule of law, judicial review,
administrative justice and good governance generally. It also undermines
the power given to the people in article 1 of the 1992 constitution.

You might also like