Advocates for Christ Ghana (A4CG) has described President Akufo-Addo’s resolution to await the choice of the Supreme Court in relation to the writ filed by a non-public authorized practitioner over the passage of the anti-LGBTQ+ Bill as abdication of accountability.
The group contends that the Supreme Court itself, can not act on the writ as a result of the Bill will not be but legislation.
This is contained in an announcement issued by the A4CG on March 8.
“We at A4CG believe that such an action by the President would be an abdication of executive responsibility in the constitutionally mandated process of law making. Not only that, if the Supreme Court actually does entertain the various suits questioning the constitutionality of a bill that has not yet become law, it would raise serious questions of the constitutionality of the court’s actions with regards to the justiciability (ripeness) of the actions. That would also be an unmitigated violation of long-established doctrine of separation of powers because the judiciary would be interfering with the execution of powers reserved for the executive and the legislative arms of government,” they defined.
Please learn full assertion under:
Introduction
Apropos of sure statements attributed to the President of the Republic of Ghana, and that are making rounds on social media, relating to the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, Advocates for Christ Ghana (A4CG) is making these observations regarding the constitutionality of the purported motion of the President of Ghana.
Recent information means that the President is outwardly planning on deferring his accountability to assent or to not assent to the lately handed Human Rights and Family Values Bill, till the Supreme Court has decided, or choices on the a number of authorized challenges to the Bill.
We at A4CG consider that such an motion by the President can be an abdication of government accountability within the constitutionally mandated means of legislation making. Not solely that, if the Supreme Court really does entertain the assorted fits questioning the constitutionality of a invoice that has not but develop into legislation, it could elevate severe questions of the constitutionality of the courtroom’s actions almost about the justiciability (ripeness) of the actions. That would even be an unmitigated violation of long-established doctrine of separation of powers as a result of the judiciary can be interfering with the execution of powers reserved for the chief and the legislative arms of presidency.
Law Making Process within the 1992 Constitution
The structure of Ghana is the supreme legislation of the land and any legislation or motion that’s inconsistent with the structure is void to the extent of the inconsistency. Article 1 Clause 2 of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana states, “This Constitution shall be the supreme law of Ghana and any other law found to be inconsistent with any provision of this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”
The structure has reserved the law-making powers for the Legislature – Parliament and has additionally laid down the processes by which legislation is made. Article 106 (1) says, “The power of Parliament to make laws shall be exercised by bills passed by parliament and assented to by the President.” The implications of Article 106 (1) are fairly clear. A invoice doesn’t develop into legislation till it has been assented to by the president.
Clause (7) of Article 106 continues, “Where a bill passed by Parliament is presented to the President for assent he shall signify, within seven days after the presentation, to the Speaker that he assents to the bill or that he refuses to assent to the bill, unless the bill has been referred by the President to the Council of State under article 90 of this Constitution.”
The law-making course of as laid down by the structure dictates that when Parliament has handed a invoice and introduced it to the chief, the President “shall” point out to the Speaker of Parliament, inside seven days, his intent to assent to the Bill or not assent. Once a invoice has been introduced to the President, he’s subsequently obliged beneath the structure to point his deliberate motion inside seven days.
Article 106 (8) states, “Where the President refuses to assent to a bill, he shall, within fourteen days after the refusal –
(a) state in a memorandum to the Speaker any specific provisions of the bill which in his opinion should be reconsidered by Parliament, including his recommendations for amendments if any; or
(b) inform the Speaker that he has referred the bill to the Council of State for consideration and comment under article 90 of this Constitution.
Article 106 (9) indicates, Parliament shall reconsider a bill taking into account the comments made by the President or the Council of State, as the case may be, under clause (8) of this article.
The President of Ghana therefore has seven days after a bill passed by Parliament has been presented to him, to signal whether he intends to assent or not. At this stage of presentation, the bill is not yet law and the only constitutional manoeuvres legally allowed to the President are:
- Assent
- Refuse to assent and:
(i) within fourteen days inform the Speaker of Parliament in a memorandum specifically outlining the provisions he disagrees with or (ii) inform the Speaker that the bill has been referred to the Council of State under Article 90.
The presidential oath under the second schedule of the 1992 Constitution obligates the President to at all times, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana. Coupled with the above mentioned constitutionally mandated actions, the President must not only be seeking to do this, but he must also actively be seen to ensure that the constitution is followed to the letter. The constitution has empowered him to act in specific ways and he is expected to exercise power in line with his constitutional mandate.
The excuse that the “bill” (we aren’t even speaking in regards to the legislation) has been challenged and so there must be a pause on the provisions of Article 106 (1) and (7) is a wierd one as a result of nothing within the structure, whether or not instantly pertaining to the train of government powers or not directly from powers assigned to different branches of presidency, prevents the President from exercising his constitutionally mandated obligations. No department of presidency can enjoin or forestall him from exercising his Article 106 (7) duties. In any case, there may be the inconsistent precedent, only a 12 months in the past in March 2022, when the President proceeded to offer assent to the e-levy invoice, even when a swimsuit was pending earlier than the Supreme Court.
The Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Article 125 (5) states, “The Judiciary shall have jurisdiction in all matters civil and criminal, including matters relating to this Constitution, and such other jurisdiction as Parliament may, by law, confer
on it.”
Article 130 (1) provides, “Subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court in the enforcement of the Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms as provided in Article 33 of this Constitution, the Supreme Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in (a) all matters relating to the enforcement or interpretation of this Constitution; and (b) all matters arising as to whether an enactment was made in excess of the powers conferred on Parliament or any other authority or person by law or under this Constitution.”
Article 2 (1) States, “A person who alleges that –
- An enactment or anything contained in or done under the authority of that or any other enactment; or b. Any act or omission of any person; Is inconsistent with, or is in contravention of a provision of this Constitution, may bring an action in the Supreme Court for a declaration to that effect.”
It has lengthy been established that it’s inside the energy of the judiciary to interpret the structure (Marbury v Madison). In this regard the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is triggered the place there’s a case or controversy with regard to the constitutionality of an enactment (act, legislation or statute). The idea of a case or controversy is rooted within the doctrine of justiciability. Not each case or controversy is justiciable.
For a case or controversy to be justiciable, standing should be established and there should be a reside controversy (neither unripe nor moot), amongst others – in our case, because of this the problem to the constitutionality of a statute will solely be reside if the statute has been handed. Put one other means, if a invoice has not run its full enactment course – from passage by Parliament to assent by the President – then difficult its constitutionality makes such an motion unripe for the courts to adjudicate. There is a protracted path of priority supporting the place of the courts’ distaste for unripe controversies.
The mixed impact of all these provisions is that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to listen to a case difficult the constitutionality of an enactment is barely triggered when there may be an enactment (as Article 130 (1)(b) places it) or a legislation (as Article 1(2) places it). At this level with respect to the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values invoice, there may be really no legislation or enactment and so the jurisdiction of the courtroom is non-existent. Additionally, there’s a severe query of standing that has been raised. Article 2(1)(a) offers standing to any one who alleges that an enactment is in contravention of a provision of the Constitution. If there is no such thing as a enactment as at this level, then there may be additionally no standing for any individual to problem based mostly on its constitutionality.
It is our thought-about view that the Supreme Court of Ghana is unlikely to disturb the lengthy[1]established foundational truths of constitutional legislation regarding the justiciability of an unripe case introduced earlier than it by individuals with out standing.
Separation of Powers
Should the Supreme Court entertain such actions as has been filed at this stage of the law-making course of, the courtroom can be interfering with obligations reserved for the Legislature and the Executive.
Conclusion
From the case made up to now, it’s clear that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an unripe motion and no standing exists for any individual to problem the constitutionality of a invoice that’s not but legislation.
Clearly, all accountability lies squarely on the shoulders of our President who was elected to train sure powers on behalf of the folks of Ghana and of their curiosity and welfare. The folks of Ghana will subsequently be watching fastidiously whether or not H.E. Nana Addo Dankwa Akuffo-Addo is the President on behalf of the folks of Ghana or quite the President representing the worldwide group in Ghana and past.
Additionally, we want to level to the hallowed phrases of Article 1(1) of the 1992 structure, which states, “The Sovereignty of Ghana resides in the people of Ghana in whose name and for whose welfare the powers of government are to be exercised…” [1]
In this context, it’s a good time to remind the Executive and Judiciary, that the Legislature has exercised an enumerated energy to enact legal guidelines that seize the ethos and aspirations of the folks of Ghana in whose title and for whose welfare the powers they wield should be exercised. No group of individuals, whether or not inside or with out, must be allowed to affect our establishments to frustrate the need of the folks. Ghana has spoken by her representatives in Parliament, the President and the Supreme Court should respect the voice of the folks of Ghana, in whom the Sovereignty of Ghana resides and chorus from utterances or actions that doubtlessly set off unrest. God bless our homeland Ghana.