Since under article 19(11) of the Constitution, 1992 it was unconstitutional to convict or punish any person unless a written law defined or provided sanctions for the offence, the provision of section 8( 1)( e) of the Interpretation Act, 1960 (CA 4) dealing with the effect of a repeal, revocation or cesser of an enactment was unconstitutional in respect of criminal offences contained in a repealed law such as PNDCL 150 and therefore inapplicable to the criminal case pending against the plaintiffs. It would have been different if the plaintiff had been convicted before the repeal of PNDCL 150 by Act 516 or if Act 516 had saved offences committed before the repeal of PNDCL ISO. Since Act 516 was silent on that issue and merely repealed PNDCL ISO the provisions of article 19(11) became applicable to the criminal case pending against the plaintiffs.