Contemporary Constitutional Issues in our Multiparty Democracy disturbances that took place in the Gold Coast on the 28 th and 29 th days of February, 1948, following the shooting of Sergeant Adjetey and other ex­servicemen at the Osu Cross Roads on 28 th February. The appeal was resisted by the then Attorney-General of Ghana, Mr. Geoffrey Bing, with whom appeared the late Mr. A.N.E Amissah. Dr. Danquah argued 7 grounds of appeal. One particular ground of appeal which was argued by Dr. Danquah and rejected by the court was that the Preventive Detention Act, 1958, under the authority of which the Appellants were detained was“in excess of the powers conferred on Parliament by the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana with respect to article 13(1) of the Constitution or is contrary to the solemn declaration of fundamental principles made by the President on assumption of office.” A second and equally important ground of appeal was that by virtue of the Habeas Corpus Act, 1816, which was a statute of general application and therefore in force in Ghana at the time the court was required or had a duty to inquire into the truth or otherwise of the grounds upon which the Governor-General said he was satisfied that the order he had made was necessary to prevent the Appellants from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State. In an unanimous judgment read by Korsah CJ on behalf of the court, the appeals were dismissed on all the grounds argued.” Re Akoto provided a very fine opportunity for our courts to enforce the fundamental rights of Ghanaians. Indeed, the first serious attempt at giving express provision to human rights in Ghana's Constitution was in article 13(1) of the 1960 Constitution, which was an issue in the case. Article 13(1) of the 1960 Constitution provided that: The President shall assume office by taking an oath in the following form... I … solemnly swear … That subject to such restrictions as may be necessary for preserving public order, morality or health, no person should be deprived of freedom of religion or speech, of the right to move and assemble without hindrance or of the right of access to courts of law. That no person should be deprived of his property save where the public interest so requires and the law so provides(original emphasis). The former Supreme Court, however, regrettably held that these declarations were not enforceable or justiciable but were mere declarations of goals to which the government and the President would aspire. As the late Peter Ala Adjetey noted, 2