Kotoka Airport remains legal name until Parliament passes renaming Bill – AG

The Attorney-General has told the Supreme Court that Kotoka International Airport remains the facility’s legal name, as the legislative process to rename it Accra International Airport has not yet been completed. The suit was filed by Austin Kwabena Brako-Powers, who is seeking a declaration that the government’s decision to rename Kotoka International Airport without first amending NLCD 339 is unconstitutional.

The plaintiff’s case centres on whether the proposed change can lawfully proceed while the decree establishing the General Kotoka Trust remains in force. The Attorney-General maintains that the decree remains operative and that the proposed renaming must go through Parliament before it can take legal effect. In an affidavit of evidence, the government said the renaming process was ongoing and that the public announcement of the proposed change did not, on its own, give it legal effect.

The affidavit was deposed to by Mamavi Owusu-Aboagye, an Assistant State Attorney in the Civil Division of the Office of the Attorney-General. The government pointed to a paragraph in Exhibit AG8, which outlined the steps required to implement the renaming, including changes to statutory instruments, official documents, airport signage, digital platforms and aviation publications.

It argued that the reference to further statutory changes in the document showed that the renaming had not been legally completed through the press release announcing the decision. The affidavit further stated that the Accra International Airport Bill, 2026, had been prepared, received Cabinet approval and been signed by the Minister for Transport.

It said the Bill was ready to be laid before Parliament in accordance with the legislative process. Kotoka Trust Decree remains in force The Attorney-General maintained that the government had neither amended nor repealed the General Kotoka Trust Decree, 1969 (NLCD 339). “The General Kotoka Trust Decree, 1969 (NLCD 339) remains fully intact and operative as part of the laws of Ghana.

The airport’s legal name under Ghanaian law continues to be Kotoka International Airport,” the affidavit stated. The government also denied interfering with the trust established in honour of the late General Emmanuel Kwasi Kotoka. It said no beneficiary had been deprived of any benefit and no obligation under the trust had been rendered unenforceable.

Government outlines approval process The affidavit traced the steps taken by the government towards the proposed renaming, beginning with the submission of a draft Accra International Airport Bill, 2025, to the Ministry of Transport on August 21, 2025. The government requested that the Ministry forward the draft to Cabinet for consideration and approval before it was laid before Parliament.

On November 10, 2025, the Ministry of Transport formally sought Cabinet’s policy approval through a memorandum proposing the name change and the introduction of legislation to Parliament. Cabinet approved the proposal on December 9, 2025, with the decision formally communicated to the Attorney-General on January 23, 2026. The Minister for Transport signed the Bill on February 10, 2026, after which it was prepared for presentation to Parliament.

Attorney-General challenges Supreme Court’s jurisdiction In its statement of case, the Attorney-General argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit because the plaintiff had not raised a genuine question of constitutional interpretation or enforcement. It contended that the plaintiff’s complaint concerned an alleged violation of NLCD 339, which it described as a statutory rather than constitutional matter.

“The Plaintiff’s true grievance is that NLCD 339, a statutory instrument, has been or is about to be violated. That is a statutory question, not a constitutional one, and no genuine issue of constitutional interpretation or enforcement arises,” the statement of case read. The Attorney-General also argued that the action was premature because Parliament had not yet laid the Bill.

It said granting the injunctions sought by the plaintiff would stop the legislative process before Parliament had a chance to consider the proposed law. “For this Court to grant the injunctive reliefs sought by the Plaintiff would be for the judiciary to arrest a legislative process at the very threshold of Parliament before Parliament has had any opportunity to exercise its constitutional role,” the statement read.

The case remains pending before the Supreme Court. AFFIDAVIT OF EVIDENCEDownload