Voting not a God-given right – Law Prof 'schools' Lithur

Read Comments Comments (156)

• K. Boateng 10 years ago

  Kwasi Prempeh, why don't you direct your sermon to your Akuffo Addo who is captured on record stating that “In emphasizing the importance of elections, it must be pointed out that the sanctity of the ballot is and must be s ...
  read full comment

  Kwasi Prempeh, why don't you direct your sermon to your Akuffo Addo who is captured on record stating that “In emphasizing the importance of elections, it must be pointed out that the sanctity of the ballot is and must be supreme. In an election, we cast votes, then the votes are counted, the count is collated, the results are announced and formal declarations of results are made. In the entire process, we must never forget that it is the casting of the ballot that is sacred, the rest of the activities are at best, administrative duties. The count, the collation, the declaration of results cannot and should not be more important than the sacred, God-given right of a citizen casting his or her ballot. There is only one principle. Elections are about those who cast the vote, not those who count, not those who supervise, not those who transmit and not those who declare. The heart of the democratic process is about those who cast the vote”?
  
  You hypocrites have been caught pants down with your double talks so zip it and bury your shame.

  reply
• Frimpong, USA 10 years ago

  Some of these so called learned Ashantis are so stupid and biased in their thoughts that they only see and comment on their opponents and leave out their own. That's what they did with the collection of the so called evidence ...
  read full comment

  Some of these so called learned Ashantis are so stupid and biased in their thoughts that they only see and comment on their opponents and leave out their own. That's what they did with the collection of the so called evidence leaving out their strong holds and fishing in other people strong holds.

  reply
• GTV-TV3 on WWW.OFMTV.COM 10 years ago

  NEWS LIVE FROM GHANA ON TV3, TV AFRICA, GTV, ADOM TV AND
  OVER 7500 TV - RADIO CHANNELS FREE ONLINE AT WWW.OFMTV.COM

  NEWS LIVE FROM GHANA ON TV3, TV AFRICA, GTV, ADOM TV AND
  OVER 7500 TV - RADIO CHANNELS FREE ONLINE AT WWW.OFMTV.COM

  reply
• GTV-TV3 on WWW.OFMTV.COM 10 years ago

  or NEWS LIVE FROM GHANA ON TV3, TV AFRICA, GTV, ADOM TV AND
  OVER 7500 TV - RADIO CHANNELS FREE ONLINE AT WWW.OFMTV.COM

  or NEWS LIVE FROM GHANA ON TV3, TV AFRICA, GTV, ADOM TV AND
  OVER 7500 TV - RADIO CHANNELS FREE ONLINE AT WWW.OFMTV.COM

  reply
• OLD SOLDIER 10 years ago

  Source: Daily Guide...
  
  All of a sudden nonentities want to portray to the world how close they were to the late President.
  
  Those who had to chat with him for one hour everyday, those Deputy Ministers who had to call him ...
  read full comment

  Source: Daily Guide...
  
  All of a sudden nonentities want to portray to the world how close they were to the late President.
  
  Those who had to chat with him for one hour everyday, those Deputy Ministers who had to call him every morning before the man could even brush his teeth, and still those who would be called to the Castle by the late President to express his appreciation for job well done after they had gone to insult political opponents in the media on his behalf. Shameless id.iots raising their egos..

  reply
• Jato Julor (J.J.) Rawlings 10 years ago

  Who takes Tony Lithur seriously besides NDC foolsoldiers ?
  
  The man was heard loudly and clearly on GBC TV saying that he was totally confused with the wits of Dr.Bawumia and the weight of his evidence.
  
  So what legal arg ...
  read full comment

  Who takes Tony Lithur seriously besides NDC foolsoldiers ?
  
  The man was heard loudly and clearly on GBC TV saying that he was totally confused with the wits of Dr.Bawumia and the weight of his evidence.
  
  So what legal arguments else can he use as his defence besides divine intervention ?
  
  Tony Lithur is a mob lawyer and defends NDC stealers who have stolen state resources.
  
  He wins his cases, because the NDC appointed Attorney-Generals,(with the exception of Martin Amidu)always refuse to go to court to defend the state.

  reply
• moyo 10 years ago

  The so call America Professors are simply junior Lecturers in Ghana. Any Phd. holder who lectures in America is call a Professor. Ghana and the UK, he will not be called a Prof. This Prempeh has not said anything. Ask Prempeh ...
  read full comment

  The so call America Professors are simply junior Lecturers in Ghana. Any Phd. holder who lectures in America is call a Professor. Ghana and the UK, he will not be called a Prof. This Prempeh has not said anything. Ask Prempeh whether he has been to Court before? Cheap boy

  reply
• liv 10 years ago

  Are you familiar with Seton Hall University?

  Are you familiar with Seton Hall University?

  reply
• K.Twum 10 years ago

  So NPP and it's supporters mean to tell the whole world that they did not find anything wrong with their own counsel's address but yet they found everything wrong with the respondents lawyers? Wow!!!

  So NPP and it's supporters mean to tell the whole world that they did not find anything wrong with their own counsel's address but yet they found everything wrong with the respondents lawyers? Wow!!!

  reply
• Simple Man 10 years ago

  Voting right “fundamental”, “inalienable” and “god-given”: a reply to Prof. Prempeh
  
  Prof. H. Kwasi Prempeh is a man I admire so much for his keen interest in democracy, development and public affairs. On Wednes ...
  read full comment

  Voting right “fundamental”, “inalienable” and “god-given”: a reply to Prof. Prempeh
  
  Prof. H. Kwasi Prempeh is a man I admire so much for his keen interest in democracy, development and public affairs. On Wednesday evening, the good law Professor made an observation on Facebook. The observation was in respect of a statement attributed to Mr. Tony Lithur, the lawyer for the President in the ongoing election petition. It appears that Mr. Lithur in his address to the Supreme Court on Wednesday asserted that the right to vote in Ghana is “fundamental”, “inalienable” and “God-given." Professor Prempeh did not think that the assertion of the President’s lawyer was accurate in law or jurisprudence. To Prof. Prempeh, “the right to vote is, in Ghana as everywhere else, a right that emanates from "positive law" - in this case, the Constitution”. This observation by Prof. made it to the headline. My understanding of this statement by Prof. is that a law cannot be both “fundamental” and “positive” at the same time. In other words, a law cannot be “god-given” and “man-made” at the same time.
  
  For the first time, I have to disagree with Prof. Prempeh. I rather agree with Mr. Lithur. A right may be “god-given” and “man-made” at the same time.” I do this not oblivious of the danger or the near-recklessness involved in a beginner like myself trying to move against an established legal authority like Prof. This is how I intend to explain my position.
  I will first give a brief history of what has now become known as human right. The purpose of this rendition of history is to make the point that there is no material difference between “god-given” rights and “fundamental” right and that the two can also be “positive” or “man-made” at the same time. If I am able to show this, then, I believe there will be no force left in Prof.’s critique of Mr. Lithur. I will then conclude the note by explaining why the right to vote, which was previously only a “Constitutional,” “man-made” or “positive” right, has now acquired the additional attributes of “fundamental” or “god-given” right in Ghana. I will also show, contrary to what Prof has said, that Ghana is not alone in this business of migrating the right to vote on to the “fundamental” human rights scheme. I start.
  
  The starting point is that no entitlement can be enjoyed as of right unless it is “man-made”. The use of the term “god-given” therefore does not mean that God or god has literally dropped that right down as in the case of the Ten Commandments. I therefore will not attempt to think that Prof.’s interpretation of “god-given” is that there are some rights that have been literally handed down by God. Now what does it mean to say that a right is “god-given”? This will be found in the history of what is known today as human rights.
  
  The idea of human rights itself started long before the marriage of the Church to the State. It used to be called “natural law” or “natural right”. “Natural” because the proponents believe that there are certain things that human beings are entitled to by the mere fact of their being humans; that no person, including the sovereign, could take that entitlement away from him; that those entitlements are inalienable and inherent; and that all you have to show to be accorded those entitlements is that you are a human being. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle all spoke about these “natural” inherent entitlements.
  
  The fall of Greece and the concomitant rise of Rome did not kill this thinking. Cicero and other Roman philosophers continued to propound these ideas of “natural rights”. Also, the rise of the Church and its subsequent marriage to the State kept these ideas growing. The only change, however, was in the term used to describe these entitlements. “Natural rights” subsequently became “God-given” rights. St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine wrote extensively about this. Then the divorce of the Church and the State came, where the writings of the so-called enlightenment thinkers, the contractarians, or the libertarians, Locke, Roseau, Paine, etc changed the nomenclature of these entitlements from “God-given” right to “human rights.” That notwithstanding the concept remained the same.
  
  After the Second World War and the coming of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the war-time leaders decided to stress and concretize the point that these “human rights” were “fundamental” and could not be traded for anything. That was how come we now refer to them as “fundamental human rights”. To this extent, one cannot legitimately or seriously argue that there is a difference between “god-given” rights and “fundamental” rights. The two terms refer to the same “inherent” and “inalienable” rights, found in the American and the French declarations. One thing ran through all these changes – no one enjoyed these entitlements as of right unless they are made “positive” by a human sovereign. Thus, to be meaningful “rights” must always be elevated from “god-made” to “man-made”. Accordingly, the two “- mades” can co-exist. In fact the former “–made” means nothing unless it transforms into the latter “-made”. Having established this, I now proceed to explain why I think Mr. Lithur was not wrong with his permutation – “fundamental”, “inalienable” and “God-given”.
  
  The Drafters of our constitutions, 1979 and 1992 were informed by this new terminology of “fundamental human rights”, for which reason the Chapter V of our current Constitution is titled “The FUNDAMENTAL Human Rights and Freedoms”. “Fundamental” was used to underscore the difference between the civil and political rights in Chapter V and the Economic, Social and Cultural rights provided for under Chapter VI and titled the “Directive Principles of State Policy”. This use of “Fundamental” by the drafter of our Constitution to distinguish the civil and political rights is not new in the world. India’s 1950 Constitution uses the same language to distinguish between the two categories of rights. The European Convention also uses “Fundamental” (Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and FUNDAMENTAL Freedoms).
  
  Prof.’s disagreement is that Mr. Lithur used “fundamental” and “god-given” to qualify the right to vote; and that that description is wrong in law. He advanced to say that the right to vote is “positive” or “man-made.” Indeed, Prof would have been right before 2010 when the case of Ahumah-Ocansey v. the EC was not decided by the Supreme Court. However, since Prof. made his assertion just on Wednesday, August 7, 2013, over two years after that landmark case was decided, he could not still be right. What I am saying is that Mr. Tony Lithur (not Prof.) was very right by qualifying the right to vote as “fundamental” or “god-given.” The reason is as follows:
  
  At the tail end of Chapter V – the “FUNDAMENTAL Human Rights and Freedoms” – of the 1992 Constitution is a provision - Article 33(5). That Provision allows a rights which is not part of Chapter V (the “Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms) but which nonetheless is “considered to be inherent in a democracy and intended to secure the freedom and dignity of man” to be added to Chapter V as “Fundamental”. In other words, a right which is not already “fundamental” but which meets the criteria in Article 33(5) may be added to Chapter V by the Supreme Court and made “fundamental” or “god-give” or “inalienable” and be treated as such. That was exactly what the Supreme Court did in 2010 in the Ahumah-Ocansey case. Therefore since that day, the right to vote, which was hitherto a mere Constitutional right under Article 42, has been elevated to the level of “Fundamental Human Rights”. In effect, that right, since that day, has become part of Chapter V and is therefore “fundamental.” Really, if we were living in the day of St. Thomas Aquinas, we would have called it “God-given” or better still “natural” if we were living in the day of Plato.
  
  Prof. also implies in his critique of Mr. Lithur that the right to vote is nowhere in the world treated as a “god-given” or “fundamental” right. That too cannot be a correct statement of the reality. So, let us step onto the international plane to see if Ghana’s Supreme Court is alone in this transaction of designating the right to vote as “fundamental”.
  
  In the Canadian case of Sauvé v. the Attorney General of Canada (No. 2), the majority opinion given by McLachlin C.J. considered that the right to vote was “fundamental” to their democracy and the rule of law and could not be lightly set aside. In the South African case of August and another v. Electoral Commission & Ors., the Constitutional Court stated that “[t]he universality of the franchise is important not only for nationhood and democracy. The vote of each and every citizen is a badge of dignity and personhood. Quite literally, it says that everybody counts." It cannot be reasonable disputed that democracy itself is widely considered as a “Fundamental” human right. Finally, in Hirst v. UK the European Court of Human Rights states that “the right to vote is not a privilege. In the twenty-first century, the presumption in a democratic State must be in favour of inclusion.” The continental Court continues: “prisoners in general continue to enjoy all the FUNDAMENTAL rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention.”
  
  So it is quite clear at this stage that the right to vote, though initially a privilege within the bosom of the sovereign, who uses legislation – “positive law” – to decide to whom it should be given and when it should be given and withheld, has transformed greatly into a “fundamental” right which could not be arbitrarily limited; not even by the sovereign. The right is no more purely a “positive” law matter.
  
  Now I turn to some house-keeping matters. While reading the comments under Prof.’s Facebook post, which post became the subject of the news item, I noticed some commentators busily making their own points and drawing some analogies. Some of the analogies sought to suggest that “fundamental” mean “absolute” or “unrestrained”. So, Mr. Lithur’s pronouncement was taken to mean that voting right is absolute. In fact, one person even stated that if the right is fundamental then there was no need to register before voting and also that there could be no age-limit. They conclude that the fact that the right to vote is limited by age and procedures of voting means that they are not fundamental or inalienable as Mr. Lithur argued. I think that is very unfortunate an argument to make. The right to personal liberty is “fundamental” but is not unlimited. The right to free speech and even the right to life are all fundamental but are not unlimited. Suffice it to say that that line of reasoning is unhelpful.
  
  I end!
  
  The writer is a practising Ghanaian Lawyer in the UK.

  reply
• K.Poku 10 years ago

  I have read with delight the commentary by my social media friend and interlocutor Justice Srem-Sai, which reacts to a comment I posted on my Facebook wall on Wednesday, August 7, 2013. Because Mr. Sai’s commentary unfortu ...
  read full comment

  I have read with delight the commentary by my social media friend and interlocutor Justice Srem-Sai, which reacts to a comment I posted on my Facebook wall on Wednesday, August 7, 2013. Because Mr. Sai’s commentary unfortunately misunderstands and misrepresents my position, I have decided to offer this Reply.
  
  In my Facebook posting, I commented on a statement attributed to Mr. Tony Lithur, lawyer for the 1st Respondent in the Presidential Petition Case. In his closing submission, Mr. Lithur reportedly made the following statement: “The right to vote is fundamental; it is inalienable; it is a God-given right.” In my Facebook posting, I took exception to the last part of Mr. Lithur’s reported statement, namely his assertion that the right to vote is “God-given.”
  
  For the avoidance of doubt, here is my full Facebook comment in response to Mr. Lithur’s reported statement: “The right to vote is, in Ghana as everywhere else, a right that emanates from "positive law"--in this case, the Constitution. The right to vote is not a natural right; it does not come from any god or God. It is a man-made right, as is the form of government (democracy) with which it is associated. Being a right that emanates from positive law, its content and contours must be determined by reference to its source--the Constitution. I don't know where Mr. Lithur got this idea that the right to vote is a God-given right. God has been rather forcibly and gratuitously drafted into service in this presidential petition case. I hope He [God] doesn't make another appearance in the final judgment of the Court.”
  
  This posting generated a fair amount of civil commentary on my Facebook wall. Among the commenters was Mr. Sai, whose fresh and critical perspectives and reflections on law and legal developments in Ghana I have come to enjoy and respect. On this matter, though, I think we may have to agree to disagree civilly, although I hope that after reading this reply Mr. Sai will come to a better understanding of the source of the apparent confusion between us. The confusion may be only “apparent” because Mr. Sai’s rendering of my position, as expressed in his commentary, attributes to me a position that is quite clearly not mine.
  
  I believe the source of the apparent confusion lies, at the outset, in how Mr. Sai chose to read and interpret my original Facebook comment. His understanding of that comment amounts, unfortunately, to a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of my position.
  
  In his published commentary, Mr. Sai focuses on the first sentence in my original posting: “The right to vote is, in Ghana as everywhere else, a right that emanates from ‘positive law’—in this case, the Constitution.” He then offers this interpretation of my statement: “My understanding of this statement by Prof. is that a law cannot be both ‘fundamental’ and ‘positive’ at the same time. In other words, a law cannot be ‘god-given’ and ‘man-made’ at the same time.”
  
  First, the interpretation offered by Mr. Sai is most definitely not an interpretation that flows logically or reasonably from my statement or any part of my comment. More importantly, it is not a position I share. In my very terse comment in reaction to the statement made by Mr. Lithur, I took exception only to one aspect of Mr. Lithur’s statement, namely, his assertion that the right to vote is "God-given." I did not in any way dispute or contest his other claim that the right to vote is "fundamental".
  
  Mr. Sai’s foundational error, I believe, is in supposing that "God-given" and "fundamental" must necessarily be synonymous with one another, and therefore that, if I challenged Mr. Lithur's claim that the right to vote is "God-given," I necessarily or impliedly also challenged his claim that the right to vote is "fundamental." I did not. In my comment, I took issue only with Mr. Lithur's claim that the right to vote is "God-given". But that cannot reasonably be read to mean that I thereby disagreed with his statement that the right to vote is fundamental. Whether the term “God-given” is used as just another nickname for natural rights, I do not think “fundamental” rights and “God-given” rights are necessarily synonymous—nor, for that matter, are they necessarily in tension. Therefore, to argue, as I do, that the right to vote is not “God-given” is not to say that the right to vote is not “fundamental.”
  
  The right to vote is, of course, a fundamental right in a democracy because without it a democracy is not possible, and without it citizens are reduced to mere subjects, with no orderly and peaceful mechanism to select or change their leaders. But to go the next step to say that the right to vote is also “God-given” is, in effect, to suggest that democracy, with which the right to vote is inextricably bound, is a form of government that is ordained or preferred by nature or innate to our makeup as humans. Surely, I have no basis to go this extra step. The right to vote is a right associated with democracies, but there is nothing “natural” or innately human or “God-given” about democracy as a form of government. Democracy is one form of government among many. There are very good, legitimate, and rational reasons why human societies should want to choose or prefer democracy over other alternative or rival forms of government. Perhaps humankind is indeed set on an unstoppable linear march toward democracy, as Francis Fukuyuma optimistically argued in “The End of History and the Last Man”. It is an end I would welcome were it to materialize in my lifetime. But I do not think, and there is no way of telling, that a given society’s choice or preference for democracy is ordained by or emanates from some transcendent force of nature or is something innate or hardwired in our being as humans. And if a democratic form of government cannot be shown to be necessarily “God-given” or “natural”, then it is hard for me to see in what way the right to vote (which is democracy’s guardian right) becomes “God-given.”
  
  Lest I be misunderstood again. I am a democrat and a staunch advocate of the right to vote. My point here, which is what I stated in my original Facebook posting, is that the right to vote is simply a “positive right”, which is to say, it is a right that emanates (by choice) from human law and human society—often after a political struggle. Therefore, in order to understand the content, scope and boundaries of the right to vote in any given polity we must go to the source of that right, which in our case, is the Constitution—not to some natural or indeterminate extralegal source. The fact that the right to vote is a positive/constitutional right does not, of course, make it non-fundamental. As I have stated already, I consider the right to vote to be a fundamental right in a democracy, because without it the idea of democracy becomes hollow.
  
  Moreover, the fact that the right to vote is, in our Constitution, contained in Article 42—and not in Chapter V dealing with “Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms”—does not make it a “mere” constitutional right, or a right that was, until the Ahumah-Ocansey Case, jurisprudentially inferior to the rights enumerated in Chapter V, as Mr. Sai implies in his commentary. A right need not be found in Chapter V in order to make it fundamental. For example, the right to bring a lawsuit to challenge an act or omission of government or any person as unconstitutional is found in Article 2 of the Constitution. But just because the Article 2 right is found in Chapter 1, instead of Chapter V, does not make it any less fundamental as a right. The Constitution does not relegate a justiciable right to a “mere” right or to a “non-fundamental” or inferior status simply on account of the fact that the Framers did not place that right along with others in Chapter V of the Constitution.
  
  Mr. Sai compounds his initial error in misinterpreting my comment by also attributing to me the view that a law cannot be both “God-given” and “man-made” at the same time. Again, nothing in my terse Facebook comment compels this extraordinary conclusion or generalization. My comment, quite deliberately, limited itself only to one right: the right to vote. I did not purport in that comment to advance a general thesis or theory about the nature of law generally or whether any other law or right could or could not be both “God-given” and “man-made.” In every legal system that is respectful of rights, there is bound, or at least likely, to be some right or rights that are both “natural rights” (in the sense of deriving from our innate being or from an extralegal transcendent source) and “positive rights” (insofar as the particular legal system has recognized and granted legal force and protection to such rights). The right to vote is, however, in my view, not one of those rights that are both positive and natural. Therefore, it is again error on Mr. Sai’s part to have read my comment beyond its rather limited scope and object, which was simply to challenge the description of the right to vote as God-given.
  
  As a result of the foundational errors in Mr. Sai’s reading and interpretation of my comment, much of the rest of his commentary, unfortunately, simply compounds and extends his initial misunderstanding. In the process, he launches into an interesting exposition of the history and evolution of “human rights,” tracing the idea from its philosophical and natural law origins to the justly elevated status it enjoys in modern times. The problem with all of that fine exposition is that there is little in there with which I can disagree—except Mr. Sai’s implicit suggestion that I must be some unreconstructed legal positivist who denies or rejects the validity of natural rights or human rights as fundamental. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, in my published writings, both in the popular press (including social media) and in more scholarly forums, I have not once associated myself with a rigid “positivistic” reading of the Constitution. To the contrary, I have consistently advocated a more open-minded, liberal and progressive reading of the Constitution, one that accords with contemporary jurisprudential thought and developments in comparative and international law.
  
  In Mr. Sai’s initial comment on my Facebook wall, he stated that Mr. Lithur’s statement describing the right to vote as “God-given” was not wrong because, in his view, the Supreme Court of Ghana had stated in the prisoners’ voting rights case (the “Ahumah-Ocansey Case”) that the right to vote was “fundamental”. I queried whether the Court in the Ahumah-Ocansey Case had expressly described the right to vote as “God-given” in its judgment and went on to argue that it would be jurisprudentially inapt, and no less wrong, for the Court to say so. Mr. Sai did not directly answer that query, but continued to say that the Court had made clear that the right to vote was “fundamental.”
  
  As I have explained, the latter proposition, that the right to vote is a fundamental right, is certainly not a proposition with which I disagree. Indeed, long before the Ahumah-Ocansey Case, I had stated publicly, during the debate over voting rights for Ghanaians living abroad, that the right to vote guaranteed in the Ghanaian Constitution was sufficiently broad in its reach as to extend even to prisoners. The result in the Ahumah-Ocansey Case was, therefore, for me both right and long overdue. But my defense of prisoners’ right to vote is based squarely on the 1992 Constitution and on the fact that Ghana is a democracy; it is not based on some notion that the right to vote is “God-given.”
  
  I hope that this Reply will help to clarify the rather simple and straightforward position I stated in my Facebook posting, a position which Mr. Sai unfortunately, if sincerely, totally misunderstood and thus mischaracterized in his otherwise fine and welcome commentary. Perhaps it would be best if we could simply carry on with this important constitutional litigation without invoking or using the name of “God” in vain.

  reply
• moyo 10 years ago

  The Prof should read simple man's contribution to the topic and he will be better of than where he started. Thank you once again for that. I am really impressed

  The Prof should read simple man's contribution to the topic and he will be better of than where he started. Thank you once again for that. I am really impressed

  reply
• C.Y. ANDY-K 10 years ago

  Just posted this below before seeing this link and the response of HKP posted by K-Poku. I think I have said in few words what HKP had said in very many words.
  
  Simple Man,
  
  Yours is a brilliant contribution on the evolut ...
  read full comment

  Just posted this below before seeing this link and the response of HKP posted by K-Poku. I think I have said in few words what HKP had said in very many words.
  
  Simple Man,
  
  Yours is a brilliant contribution on the evolution of fundamental rights, and I wish many readers read it.
  
  You are absolutely right in your lucid exposition but I guess, you, like most, has missed the essence of HKP's jab at the literal imposition of God into the Ghanaian electoral/ political space. I am sure HKP is equally aware of what you have written but still wrote what he did.
  
  Look, on the Ghanaian scene, people are not only invoking god as a metaphor or synonym to, say, fundamental or natural [rights]. They literally believe in a supreme being directly intervening to make them win elections, and in this case, the source of those inalienable rights like voting. They are therefore thinking and acting in Middle Age terms! That's what HKP was jabbing at, with tongue in cheek, when he remarked that he hoped He (God) did not appear in the summation of justices of the SC too.
  
  Let us limit ourselves to modern, post-Enlightenment nomenclature, and not Middle Age terminology and beliefs and those of us who are modernists and obdurant pagans in its original sense of non-believers shall leave the superstitious believers alone. No god gave anybody any rights whatsoever because no god created human beings and, btw, the universe too! Simple as that!
  
  Period!
  
  Andy-K

  reply
• Sankofa 10 years ago

  First time I have heard of it.
  
  Wonder whether it is worthy of the designation of a university with Prof Prempeh on its books spewing forth such nonsense.

  First time I have heard of it.
  
  Wonder whether it is worthy of the designation of a university with Prof Prempeh on its books spewing forth such nonsense.

  reply
• william 10 years ago

  'Schooling' Tony Lithur? Because of PHD title or because he is based in the USA? Another cheap attention seeker. If he was so good he should have come to Addison's aid. Or did he adivise him wrongly? Mr. law professor, 'vox ...
  read full comment

  'Schooling' Tony Lithur? Because of PHD title or because he is based in the USA? Another cheap attention seeker. If he was so good he should have come to Addison's aid. Or did he adivise him wrongly? Mr. law professor, 'vox populi', 'vox dei'.The voice of the people, the voice of GOD. wE EXCERCISE IT BY VOTING. That is how GOD chooses his earthly reps democratically. god gave it to us. if any constitution fails this test we will change it to conform with this GOD given right. When the judges get stranded with tnhhe constitution, they will turn to what is deemed to be GOD-given!

  reply
• DONBOLI 10 years ago

  God not dont ask people, he knows everything . Lithur shouldnt have said it if he belief in God. God dont ask people to do things. Stupid people will use his name to kill people that is he said you serve him not he serving yo ...
  read full comment

  God not dont ask people, he knows everything . Lithur shouldnt have said it if he belief in God. God dont ask people to do things. Stupid people will use his name to kill people that is he said you serve him not he serving you. You can talk to God and he would talk back, why can anybody in his right mind say God asked him to vote. The man God DONT talk.
  Luthur has failed John Mahama for not telling the truth about SC case, he is giving John Mahama hope that is not there.

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 10 years ago

  Prof Prempeh is absolutely right. There are few natural rights or God given right such as the right to life. though some use scriptures to claim certain rights are God given. I agree with the Prof that Tony Lithur got that w ...
  read full comment

  Prof Prempeh is absolutely right. There are few natural rights or God given right such as the right to life. though some use scriptures to claim certain rights are God given. I agree with the Prof that Tony Lithur got that wrong. The right to vote is fundamental in a democratic society but not natural or God given rights.

  reply
• GENERAL DeGAULE 10 years ago

  What is the meaning of fundamental?

  What is the meaning of fundamental?

  reply
• BRIAN WILLIAMS 10 years ago

  TONY MEANT ITS A GOD GIVEN RIGHT SO DAMN THE RULES, REGISTERED OR NOT, ALL VOTES EVEN THE FRAUDULENT ONES MUST COUNT. THIS IS THE MENTALITY OF THE RULING NDC:WE OWN THE COUNTRY AND WE WILL DO AS WE LIKE. THIS PROFOUND DISRESP ...
  read full comment

  TONY MEANT ITS A GOD GIVEN RIGHT SO DAMN THE RULES, REGISTERED OR NOT, ALL VOTES EVEN THE FRAUDULENT ONES MUST COUNT. THIS IS THE MENTALITY OF THE RULING NDC:WE OWN THE COUNTRY AND WE WILL DO AS WE LIKE. THIS PROFOUND DISRESPECT FOR THE RULE OF LAW IS WHAT IS DESTROYING THE COUNTRY.

  reply
• GENERAL DeGAULE 10 years ago

  This is an exaggeration isn't it? Bawumia in the witness box in response to a question from a Judge said they wanted 4 million plus votes to be annulled. Addison in his written and oral submissions says he wants 3 million plu ...
  read full comment

  This is an exaggeration isn't it? Bawumia in the witness box in response to a question from a Judge said they wanted 4 million plus votes to be annulled. Addison in his written and oral submissions says he wants 3 million plus votes to be annulled. There is no consistency and undeviating back bone to this petition. First electoral fraud then irregularities then fraud and crime. They are all over the place. Even God is confused.

  reply
• SHUTTLE @ LEEDS 10 years ago

  Though the respondents tried hard to obstruct justice by for example preventing the court to order Afari Gjang to tend in his stinking original pink sheets which would have shown us the magnitude of fraud that Ghana was faci ...
  read full comment

  Though the respondents tried hard to obstruct justice by for example preventing the court to order Afari Gjang to tend in his stinking original pink sheets which would have shown us the magnitude of fraud that Ghana was facing, the petitioners and the judges knew that 4 million or 3 million wasn't the issue. One FRAUD in the eye of a judge will annul 1000 votes.

  reply
• GENERAL DeGAULE 10 years ago

  The Asokwa Pink sheet! You guys just don't get it.

  The Asokwa Pink sheet! You guys just don't get it.

  reply
• Simple Man 10 years ago

  Brian Williams read this piece from a simple lawyer not "Professor" of Law.
  
  Voting right “fundamental”, “inalienable” and “god-given”: a reply to Prof. Prempeh
  Prof. H. Kwasi Prempeh is a man I admire so much ...
  read full comment

  Brian Williams read this piece from a simple lawyer not "Professor" of Law.
  
  Voting right “fundamental”, “inalienable” and “god-given”: a reply to Prof. Prempeh
  Prof. H. Kwasi Prempeh is a man I admire so much for his keen interest in democracy, development and public affairs. On Wednesday evening, the good law Professor made an observation on Facebook. The observation was in respect of a statement attributed to Mr. Tony Lithur, the lawyer for the President in the ongoing election petition. It appears that Mr. Lithur in his address to the Supreme Court on Wednesday asserted that the right to vote in Ghana is “fundamental”, “inalienable” and “God-given." Professor Prempeh did not think that the assertion of the President’s lawyer was accurate in law or jurisprudence. To Prof. Prempeh, “the right to vote is, in Ghana as everywhere else, a right that emanates from "positive law" - in this case, the Constitution”. This observation by Prof. made it to the headline. My understanding of this statement by Prof. is that a law cannot be both “fundamental” and “positive” at the same time. In other words, a law cannot be “god-given” and “man-made” at the same time.
  
  For the first time, I have to disagree with Prof. Prempeh. I rather agree with Mr. Lithur. A right may be “god-given” and “man-made” at the same time.” I do this not oblivious of the danger or the near-recklessness involved in a beginner like myself trying to move against an established legal authority like Prof. This is how I intend to explain my position.
  I will first give a brief history of what has now become known as human right. The purpose of this rendition of history is to make the point that there is no material difference between “god-given” rights and “fundamental” right and that the two can also be “positive” or “man-made” at the same time. If I am able to show this, then, I believe there will be no force left in Prof.’s critique of Mr. Lithur. I will then conclude the note by explaining why the right to vote, which was previously only a “Constitutional,” “man-made” or “positive” right, has now acquired the additional attributes of “fundamental” or “god-given” right in Ghana. I will also show, contrary to what Prof has said, that Ghana is not alone in this business of migrating the right to vote on to the “fundamental” human rights scheme. I start.
  
  The starting point is that no entitlement can be enjoyed as of right unless it is “man-made”. The use of the term “god-given” therefore does not mean that God or god has literally dropped that right down as in the case of the Ten Commandments. I therefore will not attempt to think that Prof.’s interpretation of “god-given” is that there are some rights that have been literally handed down by God. Now what does it mean to say that a right is “god-given”? This will be found in the history of what is known today as human rights.
  
  The idea of human rights itself started long before the marriage of the Church to the State. It used to be called “natural law” or “natural right”. “Natural” because the proponents believe that there are certain things that human beings are entitled to by the mere fact of their being humans; that no person, including the sovereign, could take that entitlement away from him; that those entitlements are inalienable and inherent; and that all you have to show to be accorded those entitlements is that you are a human being. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle all spoke about these “natural” inherent entitlements.
  
  The fall of Greece and the concomitant rise of Rome did not kill this thinking. Cicero and other Roman philosophers continued to propound these ideas of “natural rights”. Also, the rise of the Church and its subsequent marriage to the State kept these ideas growing. The only change, however, was in the term used to describe these entitlements. “Natural rights” subsequently became “God-given” rights. St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine wrote extensively about this. Then the divorce of the Church and the State came, where the writings of the so-called enlightenment thinkers, the contractarians, or the libertarians, Locke, Roseau, Paine, etc changed the nomenclature of these entitlements from “God-given” right to “human rights.” That notwithstanding the concept remained the same.
  
  After the Second World War and the coming of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the war-time leaders decided to stress and concretize the point that these “human rights” were “fundamental” and could not be traded for anything. That was how come we now refer to them as “fundamental human rights”. To this extent, one cannot legitimately or seriously argue that there is a difference between “god-given” rights and “fundamental” rights. The two terms refer to the same “inherent” and “inalienable” rights, found in the American and the French declarations. One thing ran through all these changes – no one enjoyed these entitlements as of right unless they are made “positive” by a human sovereign. Thus, to be meaningful “rights” must always be elevated from “god-made” to “man-made”. Accordingly, the two “- mades” can co-exist. In fact the former “–made” means nothing unless it transforms into the latter “-made”. Having established this, I now proceed to explain why I think Mr. Lithur was not wrong with his permutation – “fundamental”, “inalienable” and “God-given”.
  
  The Drafters of our constitutions, 1979 and 1992 were informed by this new terminology of “fundamental human rights”, for which reason the Chapter V of our current Constitution is titled “The FUNDAMENTAL Human Rights and Freedoms”. “Fundamental” was used to underscore the difference between the civil and political rights in Chapter V and the Economic, Social and Cultural rights provided for under Chapter VI and titled the “Directive Principles of State Policy”. This use of “Fundamental” by the drafter of our Constitution to distinguish the civil and political rights is not new in the world. India’s 1950 Constitution uses the same language to distinguish between the two categories of rights. The European Convention also uses “Fundamental” (Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and FUNDAMENTAL Freedoms).
  
  Prof.’s disagreement is that Mr. Lithur used “fundamental” and “god-given” to qualify the right to vote; and that that description is wrong in law. He advanced to say that the right to vote is “positive” or “man-made.” Indeed, Prof would have been right before 2010 when the case of Ahumah-Ocansey v. the EC was not decided by the Supreme Court. However, since Prof. made his assertion just on Wednesday, August 7, 2013, over two years after that landmark case was decided, he could not still be right. What I am saying is that Mr. Tony Lithur (not Prof.) was very right by qualifying the right to vote as “fundamental” or “god-given.” The reason is as follows:
  
  At the tail end of Chapter V – the “FUNDAMENTAL Human Rights and Freedoms” – of the 1992 Constitution is a provision - Article 33(5). That Provision allows a rights which is not part of Chapter V (the “Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms) but which nonetheless is “considered to be inherent in a democracy and intended to secure the freedom and dignity of man” to be added to Chapter V as “Fundamental”. In other words, a right which is not already “fundamental” but which meets the criteria in Article 33(5) may be added to Chapter V by the Supreme Court and made “fundamental” or “god-give” or “inalienable” and be treated as such. That was exactly what the Supreme Court did in 2010 in the Ahumah-Ocansey case. Therefore since that day, the right to vote, which was hitherto a mere Constitutional right under Article 42, has been elevated to the level of “Fundamental Human Rights”. In effect, that right, since that day, has become part of Chapter V and is therefore “fundamental.” Really, if we were living in the day of St. Thomas Aquinas, we would have called it “God-given” or better still “natural” if we were living in the day of Plato.
  
  Prof. also implies in his critique of Mr. Lithur that the right to vote is nowhere in the world treated as a “god-given” or “fundamental” right. That too cannot be a correct statement of the reality. So, let us step onto the international plane to see if Ghana’s Supreme Court is alone in this transaction of designating the right to vote as “fundamental”.
  
  In the Canadian case of Sauvé v. the Attorney General of Canada (No. 2), the majority opinion given by McLachlin C.J. considered that the right to vote was “fundamental” to their democracy and the rule of law and could not be lightly set aside. In the South African case of August and another v. Electoral Commission & Ors., the Constitutional Court stated that “[t]he universality of the franchise is important not only for nationhood and democracy. The vote of each and every citizen is a badge of dignity and personhood. Quite literally, it says that everybody counts." It cannot be reasonable disputed that democracy itself is widely considered as a “Fundamental” human right. Finally, in Hirst v. UK the European Court of Human Rights states that “the right to vote is not a privilege. In the twenty-first century, the presumption in a democratic State must be in favour of inclusion.” The continental Court continues: “prisoners in general continue to enjoy all the FUNDAMENTAL rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention.”
  
  So it is quite clear at this stage that the right to vote, though initially a privilege within the bosom of the sovereign, who uses legislation – “positive law” – to decide to whom it should be given and when it should be given and withheld, has transformed greatly into a “fundamental” right which could not be arbitrarily limited; not even by the sovereign. The right is no more purely a “positive” law matter.
  
  Now I turn to some house-keeping matters. While reading the comments under Prof.’s Facebook post, which post became the subject of the news item, I noticed some commentators busily making their own points and drawing some analogies. Some of the analogies sought to suggest that “fundamental” mean “absolute” or “unrestrained”. So, Mr. Lithur’s pronouncement was taken to mean that voting right is absolute. In fact, one person even stated that if the right is fundamental then there was no need to register before voting and also that there could be no age-limit. They conclude that the fact that the right to vote is limited by age and procedures of voting means that they are not fundamental or inalienable as Mr. Lithur argued. I think that is very unfortunate an argument to make. The right to personal liberty is “fundamental” but is not unlimited. The right to free speech and even the right to life are all fundamental but are not unlimited. Suffice it to say that that line of reasoning is unhelpful.
  
  I end!
  
  The writer is a practising Ghanaian Lawyer in the UK.

  reply
• DONBOLI 10 years ago

  Stupid man think ghanaians are stupid. Everybody has the right for live not votes. NDC biggest problem, they alway try to cheat by all means. Filling ballot boxes is not voting and God didnt ask you to. He cant speak and you ...
  read full comment

  Stupid man think ghanaians are stupid. Everybody has the right for live not votes. NDC biggest problem, they alway try to cheat by all means. Filling ballot boxes is not voting and God didnt ask you to. He cant speak and you cant hear him, why can he tell everybody to vote. Lithur is stupid.

  reply
• bagged 10 years ago

  The President can sign on the dotted line for you to be executed! So much for God-given.
  There really is no such thing as god-given right, it all depends on where you are you are at the material time.
  In the UK where you ...
  read full comment

  The President can sign on the dotted line for you to be executed! So much for God-given.
  There really is no such thing as god-given right, it all depends on where you are you are at the material time.
  In the UK where you live it's called at Her Majesty's Pleasure

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 10 years ago

  bagged or whatever you call yourself, you are right that there nothing like absolute right. God given or natural right only means it must not be taken away lightly. Yes, there are countries including the US where death penalt ...
  read full comment

  bagged or whatever you call yourself, you are right that there nothing like absolute right. God given or natural right only means it must not be taken away lightly. Yes, there are countries including the US where death penalty is common. It does not mean that they have the right to take a life but that is what the laws in those countries permit. I agree with you that even natural rights are not absolute. Thanks.

  reply
• boneheard 10 years ago

  Mr Prempeh take your stupid book long nonsense elsewhere. Anything that is man made is God made. If you believe in the bible it is written where Jesus was confronted with the question of politics. Please tell me what his answ ...
  read full comment

  Mr Prempeh take your stupid book long nonsense elsewhere. Anything that is man made is God made. If you believe in the bible it is written where Jesus was confronted with the question of politics. Please tell me what his answer was

  reply
• Fifi Orleans-Lindsay, Surrey England 10 years ago

  Mr Bonehead demonstrates his "boneheadedness" here for all to see.
  
  Even if you are a devout Christian, you cannot say that "anything that is man made is God made" and keep a straight face! More importantly, the concept o ...
  read full comment

  Mr Bonehead demonstrates his "boneheadedness" here for all to see.
  
  Even if you are a devout Christian, you cannot say that "anything that is man made is God made" and keep a straight face! More importantly, the concept of "natural law" is clearly a man made construct, designed to give some gravitas to an idea that seeks to root itself in nature -from the start, so to speak. If you call yourself a Christian, you must never forget what the Gospel says about Caesar and God. The two should never be mixed. I wish people like you and the American right would abide by that injunction and stop confusing yourselves and the ignorant with muddled thinking.

  reply
• C.Y. ANDY-K 10 years ago

  As a rule, I've been keeping away from the circus in Ghana and its outfalls. I just want to note that its gratifying to note that HKP has found time to put some sanity into the clowning that is going on.
  
  Those who haven't ...
  read full comment

  As a rule, I've been keeping away from the circus in Ghana and its outfalls. I just want to note that its gratifying to note that HKP has found time to put some sanity into the clowning that is going on.
  
  Those who haven't read or heard that Kurankyie went to prison and came back to pronounce that Ghanaians were not civilised should continue insulting HKP for writing the truth. After all, uncivilised people cannot really judge what civilised people do or say, as they don't have a clue!
  
  Take you god, god nonsense away from Ghanaian politics! It goes for both parties! Indeed, it'd be a disaster if it appears in the SC judgement! Won't surprise me though! Phew!
  
  Andy-K

  reply
• KWADWO A 10 years ago

  Read below.
  A Principle of The Traditional American Philosophy
  
  3. Unalienable Rights - From God
  ". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ." (Declaration of Independence)
  
  The Principle
  
  1. ...
  read full comment

  Read below.
  A Principle of The Traditional American Philosophy
  
  3. Unalienable Rights - From God
  ". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ." (Declaration of Independence)
  
  The Principle
  
  1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that Man, The Individual, is endowed at birth with rights which are unalienable because given by his Creator.
  
  The Only Moral Basis
  
  2. This governmental philosophy is uniquely American. The concept of Man's rights being unalienable is based solely upon the belief in their Divine origin. Lacking this belief, there is no moral basis for any claim that they are unalienable or for any claim to the great benefits flowing from this concept. God-given rights are sometimes called Natural Rights--those possessed by Man under the Laws of Nature, meaning under the laws of God's creation and therefore by gift of God. Man has no power to alienate--to dispose of, by surrender, barter or gift--his God-given rights, according to the American philosophy. This is the meaning of "unalienable."
  
  One underlying consideration is that for every such right there is a correlative, inseparable duty--for every aspect of freedom there is a corresponding responsibility; so that it is always Right-Duty and Freedom-Responsibility, or Liberty-Responsibility. There is a duty, or responsibility, to God as the giver of these unalienable rights: a moral duty--to keep secure and use soundly these gifts, with due respect for the equal rights of others and for the right of Posterity to their just heritage of liberty. Since this moral duty cannot be surrendered, bartered, given away, abandoned, delegated or otherwise alienated, so is the inseparable right likewise unalienable. This concept of rights being unalienable is thus dependent upon belief in God as the giver. This indicates the basis and the soundness of Jefferson's statement (1796 letter to John Adams): "If ever the morals of a people could be made the basis of their own government it is our case . . ."
  
  Right, Reason, and Capacity to Be Self-governing
  
  3. For the security and enjoyment by Man of his Divinely created rights, it follows implicitly that Man is endowed by his Creator not only with the right to be self-governing but also with the capacity to reason and, therefore, with the capacity to be self-governing. This is implicit in the philosophy proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Otherwise, Man's unalienable rights would be of little or no use or benefit to him. Faith in Man--in his capacity to be self-governing--is thus related to faith in God as his Creator, as the giver of these unalienable rights and this capacity.
  
  Rights--as Prohibitions Against Government
  
  4. Certain specific rights of The Individual are protected in the original Constitution but this is by way of statements "in reverse"--by way of express prohibitions against government. The word "right" does not appear in the original instrument. This is because it was designed to express the grant by the people of specific, limited powers to the central government--created by them through this basic law--as well as certain specific limitations on its powers, and on the preexisting powers of the State governments, expressed as prohibitions of things forbidden. Every provision in it pertains to power.
  
  The Constitution's first eight (Bill of Rights) amendments list certain rights of The Individual and prohibit the doing of certain things by the central, or Federal, government which, if done, would violate these rights. These amendments were intended by their Framers and Adopters merely to make express a few of the already-existing, implied prohibitions against the Federal government only--supplementing the prohibitions previously specified expressly in the original Constitution and supplementing and confirming its general, over-all, implied, prohibition as to all things concerning which it withheld power from this government. Merely confirming expressly some of the already-existing, implied prohibitions, these amendments did not create any new ones. They are, therefore, more properly referred to as a partial list of limitations--or a partial Bill of Prohibitions--as was indicated by Hamilton in The Federalist number 84. This hinges upon the uniquely American concepts stated in the Declaration of Independence: that Men, created of God, in turn create their governments and grant to them only "just" (limited) powers--primarily to make and keep secure their God-given, unalienable rights including, in part, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. As Hamilton stated, under the American philosophy and system of constitutionally limited government, "the people surrender nothing;" instead, they merely delegate to government--to public servants as public trustees--limited powers and therefore, he added, "they have no need of particular reservations" (in a Bill of Rights). This is the basic reason why the Framing Convention omitted from the Constitution anything in the nature of a separate Bill of Rights, as being unnecessary.
  
  An Endless List of Rights
  
  5. To attempt to name all of these rights--starting with "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence--would be to start an endless list which would add up to the whole of Man's Freedom (Freedom from Government-over-Man). They would add up to the entirety of Individual Liberty (Liberty against Government-over-Man). Innumerable rights of The Individual are embraced in the Ninth Amendment, which states: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Here "Constitution" includes the amendments.) Some idea of how vast the list would be is indicated by just one general freedom which leads into almost all of Free Man's activities of daily living throughout life: freedom of choice. This term stands for the right to do--and equally not to do--this or that, as conscience, whim or judgement, taste or desire, of The Individual may prompt from moment to moment, day by day, for as long as life lasts; but always, of course, with due regard for the equal rights of others and for the just laws expressive of the above-mentioned "just powers" of government designed to help safeguard the equal rights of all Individuals. Spelled out in detail, this single freedom--freedom of choice--is almost all-embracing.
  
  Right To Be Let Alone
  
  6. In one sense, such freedom to choose involves Man's right to be let alone, which is possessed by The Individual in keeping with the Declaration and Constitution as against government: in enjoyment of his unalienable rights, while respecting the equal rights of others and just laws (as defined in Paragraph 5 above). This right to be let alone is the most comprehensive of rights and the right most prized by civilized men. This right is, of course, also possessed as against all other Individuals, all obligated to act strictly within the limits of their own equal rights. Consequently any infringement of any Individual's rights is precluded.
  
  Rights Inviolable by Government or by Others
  
  7. Neither government nor any Individuals--acting singly, or in groups, or in organizations--could possibly possess any "just power" (to use again the significant term of the Declaration) to violate any Individual's God-given, unalienable rights or the supporting rights. No government can abolish or destroy--nor can it rightfully, or constitutionally, violate--Man's God-given rights. Government cannot justly interfere with Man's deserved enjoyment of any of these rights. No public official, nor all such officials combined, could possibly have any such power morally. Government can, to be sure, unjustly and unconstitutionally interfere by force with the deserved enjoyment of Man's unalienable rights. It is, however, completely powerless to abolish or destroy them. It is in defense of these rights of all Individuals, in last analysis, that the self-governing people--acting in accordance with, and in support of, the Constitution--oppose any and all violators, whether public officials or usurpers, or others (par. 9 below).
  
  Each Individual Consents to Some Limitations
  
  8. In creating governments as their tools, or instruments, and equally in continuing to maintain them--for the purpose primarily of making and keeping their unalienable rights--all Individuals composing the self-governing people impliedly and in effect consent to some degree of limitation of their freedom to exercise some of their rights. This does not involve the surrender, or the alienation, of any of these rights but only the partial, conditional and limited relinquishment of freedom to exercise a few of them and solely for the purpose of insuring the greater security and enjoyment of all of them; and, moreover, such relinquishment is always upon condition that public officials, as public servants and trustees, faithfully use the limited powers delegated to government strictly in keeping with their prescribed limits and with this limited purpose at all times. It was in this sense that George Washington, as President of the Framing Convention in September, 1787, wrote to the Congress of the Confederation--in transmitting to it, for consideration, the draft of the proposed Constitution: ". . . Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest." Here he meant merely conditional relinquishment of liberty of action in the exercise of certain aspects of unalienable rights--not the surrender of any unalienable rights, which would be impossible because a nullity, a void act.
  
  An Offender's Just Punishment
  
  9. Whenever Man violates either the equal rights of others or the above-mentioned just laws, he thereby forfeits his immunity in this regard; by his misconduct, he destroys the moral and legal basis for his immunity and opens the door to just reprisal against himself, by government. This means that any person, as such offender, may justly be punished by the people's proper instrumentality--the government, including the courts--under a sound system of equal justice under equal laws; that is, under Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution). Such punishment is justified morally because of the duty of all Individuals--in keeping with Individual Liberty-Responsibility--to cooperate, through their instrumentality, government, for the mutual protection of the unalienable rights of all Individuals. The offender is also justly answerable to the aggrieved Individual, acting properly through duly-established machinery of government, including courts, designed for the protection of the equal rights of all Individuals.
  
  It is the offender's breach of the duty aspect of Individual Liberty-Responsibility which makes just, proper and necessary government's punitive action and deprives him of any moral basis for protest. By such breach he forfeits his moral claim to the inviolability of his rights and makes himself vulnerable to reprisal by the people, through government, in defense of their own unalienable rights. By this lack of self-discipline required by that duty, he invites and makes necessary his being disciplined by government.
  
  The Conclusion
  
  10. Man's unalienable rights are sacred for the same reason that they are unalienable--because of their Divine origin, according to the traditional American philosophy.
  
  
  
  Quotes from The American Ideal of 1776 supporting this Principle.

  reply
• PK 10 years ago

  I usually like what Andy-K has to say. But on this occasion, he sounds completely oblivious of the fact that many legal principles, including inalienable rights, natural justice, rule of law, trace their origins to Religion a ...
  read full comment

  I usually like what Andy-K has to say. But on this occasion, he sounds completely oblivious of the fact that many legal principles, including inalienable rights, natural justice, rule of law, trace their origins to Religion and the Church. Now, if you understand religion as an institution to regulate social order, this wouldn't come as a surprise, even if you're an atheist. In fact, many of the rights atheists enjoy have come as a result of religious people's superstitious beliefs about their God(s). The least you can do is to show some respect.

  reply
• C.Y. ANDY-K 10 years ago

  Kwadwo,
  
  Thanks for your post. I was reading the American Const. before I entered sec. schl. And as a Pol. Science major, I am fully aware of the claims made as to the origins of such inalienable rights of Americans. They w ...
  read full comment

  Kwadwo,
  
  Thanks for your post. I was reading the American Const. before I entered sec. schl. And as a Pol. Science major, I am fully aware of the claims made as to the origins of such inalienable rights of Americans. They were made at a time when god was the defining instrument of nature and existence, well before the scientific era. And all morality was based on religious precepts.
  
  Coincidentally, it was Dr Afari Gyan who taught us some of that Political Philosophy. But I never accepted that any god gave the Americans any such rights; nor accept the twaddle we learned that the proponents of Apartheid said was the same god who made we blacks to be hewers of rocks and drawers of water for the white race. I reject all that as jejune nonsense, part of the rhetorical ethics of whites!
  
  Luckily, the same Americans ban the preaching of Christianity as a doctrine in their public schools in the socialisation process.
  
  Andy-K

  reply
• Repugnant. 10 years ago

  You are all wrong. The right to vote is an inalienable right as long as equality is concerned which also goes to inform ' ones free will' in that regard all men become equal which is their God given right.
  
  According to lit ...
  read full comment

  You are all wrong. The right to vote is an inalienable right as long as equality is concerned which also goes to inform ' ones free will' in that regard all men become equal which is their God given right.
  
  According to lithur common sense and common honesty absent, unreasoning anger and violent passions, should be the only measure to invalidate a properly cast vote. The right to be who you are is therefore not an impartial right. But God given!

  reply
• MINOR CASE 10 years ago

  There you go. Contradicting yourself in the second paragraph.

  There you go. Contradicting yourself in the second paragraph.

  reply
• Mo Nkyerni 10 years ago

  Lithur wants to use God to as a as a defence from electoral malpractices. What he is driving at is, if it is electoral malpractice then, the supreme Court has no jurisdiction and no vote must be declared invalid because it a ...
  read full comment

  Lithur wants to use God to as a as a defence from electoral malpractices. What he is driving at is, if it is electoral malpractice then, the supreme Court has no jurisdiction and no vote must be declared invalid because it a a God given right to vote.

  reply
• KWADWO A 10 years ago

  Check the meaning of God's given right by the American constitution as stated below. Prempeh should go back and study the the constitution of America before trying to school someone. I am sorry for his students.
  
  "A Princip ...
  read full comment

  Check the meaning of God's given right by the American constitution as stated below. Prempeh should go back and study the the constitution of America before trying to school someone. I am sorry for his students.
  
  "A Principle of The Traditional American Philosophy
  
  3. Unalienable Rights - From God
  ". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ." (Declaration of Independence)
  
  The Principle
  
  1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that Man, The Individual, is endowed at birth with rights which are unalienable because given by his Creator.
  
  The Only Moral Basis
  
  2. This governmental philosophy is uniquely American. The concept of Man's rights being unalienable is based solely upon the belief in their Divine origin. Lacking this belief, there is no moral basis for any claim that they are unalienable or for any claim to the great benefits flowing from this concept. God-given rights are sometimes called Natural Rights--those possessed by Man under the Laws of Nature, meaning under the laws of God's creation and therefore by gift of God. Man has no power to alienate--to dispose of, by surrender, barter or gift--his God-given rights, according to the American philosophy. This is the meaning of "unalienable."
  
  One underlying consideration is that for every such right there is a correlative, inseparable duty--for every aspect of freedom there is a corresponding responsibility; so that it is always Right-Duty and Freedom-Responsibility, or Liberty-Responsibility. There is a duty, or responsibility, to God as the giver of these unalienable rights: a moral duty--to keep secure and use soundly these gifts, with due respect for the equal rights of others and for the right of Posterity to their just heritage of liberty. Since this moral duty cannot be surrendered, bartered, given away, abandoned, delegated or otherwise alienated, so is the inseparable right likewise unalienable. This concept of rights being unalienable is thus dependent upon belief in God as the giver. This indicates the basis and the soundness of Jefferson's statement (1796 letter to John Adams): "If ever the morals of a people could be made the basis of their own government it is our case . . ."
  
  Right, Reason, and Capacity to Be Self-governing
  
  3. For the security and enjoyment by Man of his Divinely created rights, it follows implicitly that Man is endowed by his Creator not only with the right to be self-governing but also with the capacity to reason and, therefore, with the capacity to be self-governing. This is implicit in the philosophy proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Otherwise, Man's unalienable rights would be of little or no use or benefit to him. Faith in Man--in his capacity to be self-governing--is thus related to faith in God as his Creator, as the giver of these unalienable rights and this capacity.
  
  Rights--as Prohibitions Against Government
  
  4. Certain specific rights of The Individual are protected in the original Constitution but this is by way of statements "in reverse"--by way of express prohibitions against government. The word "right" does not appear in the original instrument. This is because it was designed to express the grant by the people of specific, limited powers to the central government--created by them through this basic law--as well as certain specific limitations on its powers, and on the preexisting powers of the State governments, expressed as prohibitions of things forbidden. Every provision in it pertains to power.
  
  The Constitution's first eight (Bill of Rights) amendments list certain rights of The Individual and prohibit the doing of certain things by the central, or Federal, government which, if done, would violate these rights. These amendments were intended by their Framers and Adopters merely to make express a few of the already-existing, implied prohibitions against the Federal government only--supplementing the prohibitions previously specified expressly in the original Constitution and supplementing and confirming its general, over-all, implied, prohibition as to all things concerning which it withheld power from this government. Merely confirming expressly some of the already-existing, implied prohibitions, these amendments did not create any new ones. They are, therefore, more properly referred to as a partial list of limitations--or a partial Bill of Prohibitions--as was indicated by Hamilton in The Federalist number 84. This hinges upon the uniquely American concepts stated in the Declaration of Independence: that Men, created of God, in turn create their governments and grant to them only "just" (limited) powers--primarily to make and keep secure their God-given, unalienable rights including, in part, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. As Hamilton stated, under the American philosophy and system of constitutionally limited government, "the people surrender nothing;" instead, they merely delegate to government--to public servants as public trustees--limited powers and therefore, he added, "they have no need of particular reservations" (in a Bill of Rights). This is the basic reason why the Framing Convention omitted from the Constitution anything in the nature of a separate Bill of Rights, as being unnecessary.
  
  An Endless List of Rights
  
  5. To attempt to name all of these rights--starting with "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence--would be to start an endless list which would add up to the whole of Man's Freedom (Freedom from Government-over-Man). They would add up to the entirety of Individual Liberty (Liberty against Government-over-Man). Innumerable rights of The Individual are embraced in the Ninth Amendment, which states: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Here "Constitution" includes the amendments.) Some idea of how vast the list would be is indicated by just one general freedom which leads into almost all of Free Man's activities of daily living throughout life: freedom of choice. This term stands for the right to do--and equally not to do--this or that, as conscience, whim or judgement, taste or desire, of The Individual may prompt from moment to moment, day by day, for as long as life lasts; but always, of course, with due regard for the equal rights of others and for the just laws expressive of the above-mentioned "just powers" of government designed to help safeguard the equal rights of all Individuals. Spelled out in detail, this single freedom--freedom of choice--is almost all-embracing.
  
  Right To Be Let Alone
  
  6. In one sense, such freedom to choose involves Man's right to be let alone, which is possessed by The Individual in keeping with the Declaration and Constitution as against government: in enjoyment of his unalienable rights, while respecting the equal rights of others and just laws (as defined in Paragraph 5 above). This right to be let alone is the most comprehensive of rights and the right most prized by civilized men. This right is, of course, also possessed as against all other Individuals, all obligated to act strictly within the limits of their own equal rights. Consequently any infringement of any Individual's rights is precluded.
  
  Rights Inviolable by Government or by Others
  
  7. Neither government nor any Individuals--acting singly, or in groups, or in organizations--could possibly possess any "just power" (to use again the significant term of the Declaration) to violate any Individual's God-given, unalienable rights or the supporting rights. No government can abolish or destroy--nor can it rightfully, or constitutionally, violate--Man's God-given rights. Government cannot justly interfere with Man's deserved enjoyment of any of these rights. No public official, nor all such officials combined, could possibly have any such power morally. Government can, to be sure, unjustly and unconstitutionally interfere by force with the deserved enjoyment of Man's unalienable rights. It is, however, completely powerless to abolish or destroy them. It is in defense of these rights of all Individuals, in last analysis, that the self-governing people--acting in accordance with, and in support of, the Constitution--oppose any and all violators, whether public officials or usurpers, or others (par. 9 below).
  
  Each Individual Consents to Some Limitations
  
  8. In creating governments as their tools, or instruments, and equally in continuing to maintain them--for the purpose primarily of making and keeping their unalienable rights--all Individuals composing the self-governing people impliedly and in effect consent to some degree of limitation of their freedom to exercise some of their rights. This does not involve the surrender, or the alienation, of any of these rights but only the partial, conditional and limited relinquishment of freedom to exercise a few of them and solely for the purpose of insuring the greater security and enjoyment of all of them; and, moreover, such relinquishment is always upon condition that public officials, as public servants and trustees, faithfully use the limited powers delegated to government strictly in keeping with their prescribed limits and with this limited purpose at all times. It was in this sense that George Washington, as President of the Framing Convention in September, 1787, wrote to the Congress of the Confederation--in transmitting to it, for consideration, the draft of the proposed Constitution: ". . . Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest." Here he meant merely conditional relinquishment of liberty of action in the exercise of certain aspects of unalienable rights--not the surrender of any unalienable rights, which would be impossible because a nullity, a void act.
  
  An Offender's Just Punishment
  
  9. Whenever Man violates either the equal rights of others or the above-mentioned just laws, he thereby forfeits his immunity in this regard; by his misconduct, he destroys the moral and legal basis for his immunity and opens the door to just reprisal against himself, by government. This means that any person, as such offender, may justly be punished by the people's proper instrumentality--the government, including the courts--under a sound system of equal justice under equal laws; that is, under Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution). Such punishment is justified morally because of the duty of all Individuals--in keeping with Individual Liberty-Responsibility--to cooperate, through their instrumentality, government, for the mutual protection of the unalienable rights of all Individuals. The offender is also justly answerable to the aggrieved Individual, acting properly through duly-established machinery of government, including courts, designed for the protection of the equal rights of all Individuals.
  
  It is the offender's breach of the duty aspect of Individual Liberty-Responsibility which makes just, proper and necessary government's punitive action and deprives him of any moral basis for protest. By such breach he forfeits his moral claim to the inviolability of his rights and makes himself vulnerable to reprisal by the people, through government, in defense of their own unalienable rights. By this lack of self-discipline required by that duty, he invites and makes necessary his being disciplined by government.
  
  The Conclusion
  
  10. Man's unalienable rights are sacred for the same reason that they are unalienable--because of their Divine origin, according to the traditional American philosophy.
  
  
  
  Quotes from The American Ideal of 1776 supporting this Principle.

  reply
• WARD GDX - WE THE PEOPLE 10 years ago

  Where in the Constitution of United States is it stipulated that the RIGHT TO VOTE is a God given right.
  
  If it is, your infant child will craw to go and vote.
  
  If it is, there will be no Voting Rights Law.

  Where in the Constitution of United States is it stipulated that the RIGHT TO VOTE is a God given right.
  
  If it is, your infant child will craw to go and vote.
  
  If it is, there will be no Voting Rights Law.

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 10 years ago

  Thomas Jefferson wrote in the American Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (and women) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Right ...
  read full comment

  Thomas Jefferson wrote in the American Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (and women) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”.

  reply
• Okonko Palm 10 years ago

  probably after checking the facts you seem to come to a different conclusion from Professor Prempeh,Perhaps you now recognize that the term "God given right" as a metaphor or semantics.That is what makes the professors argume ...
  read full comment

  probably after checking the facts you seem to come to a different conclusion from Professor Prempeh,Perhaps you now recognize that the term "God given right" as a metaphor or semantics.That is what makes the professors argument flawed. As you quoted even the American constitution preempts it with the Phrase God given right which is steeped in natural law.

  reply
• Kwesi Mends, Takoradi 10 years ago

  THE CONSTITUTION
  
  OF THE
  
  REPUBLIC OF GHANA
  
  IN THE NAME OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD
  
  We the People of Ghana,
  
  IN EXERCISE of our natural and inalienable right to establish a framework of government which shall secure for o ...
  read full comment

  THE CONSTITUTION
  
  OF THE
  
  REPUBLIC OF GHANA
  
  IN THE NAME OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD
  
  We the People of Ghana,
  
  IN EXERCISE of our natural and inalienable right to establish a framework of government which shall secure for ourselves and posterity the blessings of liberty, equality of opportunity and prosperity;
  
  IN A SPIRIT of friendship and peace with all peoples of the world;
  
  AND IN SOLEMN declaration and affirmation of our commitment to;
  
  Freedom, Justice, Probity and Accountability;
  
  The Principle that all powers of Government spring from the Sovereign Will of the People;
  
  The Principle of Universal Adult Suffrage;
  
  The Rule of Law;
  
  The protection and preservation of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms, Unity and Stability for our Nation;
  
  DO HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITU

  reply
• K.Twum 10 years ago

  Let's be real here.Who created us?God. Who gave us the thumb or whatever we use to vote? God. Can someone force us to vote? No. Why? because is our God-giving right to take part of any constitutional law regarding an election ...
  read full comment

  Let's be real here.Who created us?God. Who gave us the thumb or whatever we use to vote? God. Can someone force us to vote? No. Why? because is our God-giving right to take part of any constitutional law regarding an election.This is reality so I don't blame the law professor for saying that because maybe, he doesn't believe in God. But if you believe in God then you realize that you have the right from him that nobody can take from you otherwise, it would be compulsory to vote when you turned 18 years... Thanks

  reply
• K.Twum 10 years ago

  correction:

  correction:

  reply
• Bimpong 10 years ago

  Frimpong what is actually wrong you and others that think the way you do. Why can't you submit whatever you have on this forum in a civilized manner. I mean submitting your contribution or criticism without insults. What have ...
  read full comment

  Frimpong what is actually wrong you and others that think the way you do. Why can't you submit whatever you have on this forum in a civilized manner. I mean submitting your contribution or criticism without insults. What have Ashantis got to do with Mr Prempeh's explanation. And what is wrong for him to correct the ignorance of the law as Lawyer Lithur argued his case. Mind you the man Prempeh as you can acknowledge is a law professor in a highly recognized institution in the US and l do not think he will dirty or disgrace himself here because of politics.

  reply
• Bimpong 10 years ago

  Bimpong
  
  Date:2013-08-08 07:20:11
  
  Comment to:Re: KWASI PREMPEH & HIS NONSENSE
  
  
  Frimpong what is actually wrong with you and others that think the way you do. Why can't you submit whatever you have on this forum in a ...
  read full comment

  Bimpong
  
  Date:2013-08-08 07:20:11
  
  Comment to:Re: KWASI PREMPEH & HIS NONSENSE
  
  
  Frimpong what is actually wrong with you and others that think the way you do. Why can't you submit whatever you have on this forum in a civilized manner. I mean submitting your contribution or criticism without insults. What have Ashantis got to do with Mr Prempeh's explanation. And what is wrong for him to correct the ignorance of the law as Lawyer Lithur argued his case. Mind you the man Prempeh as you can acknowledge is a law professor in a highly recognized institution in the US and l do not think he will dirty or disgrace himself here because of politics

  reply
• ghanaba 10 years ago

  lithur just combined common sense and the constitution enGrained on electoral laws to argu his case and he has done well by exposing dr bawumia's clueless knowledge about the common understanding of electoral laws in ghana.

  lithur just combined common sense and the constitution enGrained on electoral laws to argu his case and he has done well by exposing dr bawumia's clueless knowledge about the common understanding of electoral laws in ghana.

  reply
• KUKRUDU 10 years ago

  FRIMPONG - I BEG TO DISAGREE - WELL NOT QUITE!!! IF WE DROP THE WORD 'ASHANTI', I SURE WILL AGREE WITH YOU.
  I AM SORRY TO SAY THIS - GETTING A DEGREE IN THE STATES IS AS EASY AS DRINKING CHATWATER!! AND BEING MADE A PROFESSO ...
  read full comment

  FRIMPONG - I BEG TO DISAGREE - WELL NOT QUITE!!! IF WE DROP THE WORD 'ASHANTI', I SURE WILL AGREE WITH YOU.
  I AM SORRY TO SAY THIS - GETTING A DEGREE IN THE STATES IS AS EASY AS DRINKING CHATWATER!! AND BEING MADE A PROFESSOR IE EQUALLY EASY. LOTS OF MY FRIENDS IN EUROPE WHO HAVE NOW SETTLED IN THE USA COULD NOT HAVE ACHIEVED THE BASIC 'A' LEVELS TO ALLOW THEM ADMISSION INTO OUR UNIVERSITIES IN EUROPE!!! NOW, I CHAT WITH THEM AND THEY ALL HAVE DEGREES!! THEY DO NOT THROW THE DEGREES AT US HERE IN EUROPE!!!

  reply
• SEAL 10 years ago

  Nothing prevented the respondents from also pointing out alleged "irregularities" in the petitioners'strongholds. That would have been very interesting indeed. In would have rather boosted the petitioners'case as an admission ...
  read full comment

  Nothing prevented the respondents from also pointing out alleged "irregularities" in the petitioners'strongholds. That would have been very interesting indeed. In would have rather boosted the petitioners'case as an admission of irregularities on the part of the respondents.

  reply
• Simple Man 10 years ago

  Justice Srem-Sai replies "So call Prof"
  Prof. H. Kwasi Prempeh is a man I admire so much for his keen interest in democracy, development and public affairs. On Wednesday evening, the good law Professor made an observation on ...
  read full comment

  Justice Srem-Sai replies "So call Prof"
  Prof. H. Kwasi Prempeh is a man I admire so much for his keen interest in democracy, development and public affairs. On Wednesday evening, the good law Professor made an observation on Facebook. The observation was in respect of a statement attributed to Mr. Tony Lithur, the lawyer for the President in the ongoing election petition. It appears that Mr. Lithur in his address to the Supreme Court on Wednesday asserted that the right to vote in Ghana is “fundamental”, “inalienable” and “God-given." Professor Prempeh did not think that the assertion of the President’s lawyer was accurate in law or jurisprudence. To Prof. Prempeh, “the right to vote is, in Ghana as everywhere else, a right that emanates from "positive law" - in this case, the Constitution”. This observation by Prof. made it to the headline. My understanding of this statement by Prof. is that a law cannot be both “fundamental” and “positive” at the same time. In other words, a law cannot be “god-given” and “man-made” at the same time.
  
  For the first time, I have to disagree with Prof. Prempeh. I rather agree with Mr. Lithur. A right may be “god-given” and “man-made” at the same time.” I do this not oblivious of the danger or the near-recklessness involved in a beginner like myself trying to move against an established legal authority like Prof. This is how I intend to explain my position.
  I will first give a brief history of what has now become known as human right. The purpose of this rendition of history is to make the point that there is no material difference between “god-given” rights and “fundamental” right and that the two can also be “positive” or “man-made” at the same time. If I am able to show this, then, I believe there will be no force left in Prof.’s critique of Mr. Lithur. I will then conclude the note by explaining why the right to vote, which was previously only a “Constitutional,” “man-made” or “positive” right, has now acquired the additional attributes of “fundamental” or “god-given” right in Ghana. I will also show, contrary to what Prof has said, that Ghana is not alone in this business of migrating the right to vote on to the “fundamental” human rights scheme. I start.
  
  The starting point is that no entitlement can be enjoyed as of right unless it is “man-made”. The use of the term “god-given” therefore does not mean that God or god has literally dropped that right down as in the case of the Ten Commandments. I therefore will not attempt to think that Prof.’s interpretation of “god-given” is that there are some rights that have been literally handed down by God. Now what does it mean to say that a right is “god-given”? This will be found in the history of what is known today as human rights.
  
  The idea of human rights itself started long before the marriage of the Church to the State. It used to be called “natural law” or “natural right”. “Natural” because the proponents believe that there are certain things that human beings are entitled to by the mere fact of their being humans; that no person, including the sovereign, could take that entitlement away from him; that those entitlements are inalienable and inherent; and that all you have to show to be accorded those entitlements is that you are a human being. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle all spoke about these “natural” inherent entitlements.
  
  The fall of Greece and the concomitant rise of Rome did not kill this thinking. Cicero and other Roman philosophers continued to propound these ideas of “natural rights”. Also, the rise of the Church and its subsequent marriage to the State kept these ideas growing. The only change, however, was in the term used to describe these entitlements. “Natural rights” subsequently became “God-given” rights. St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine wrote extensively about this. Then the divorce of the Church and the State came, where the writings of the so-called enlightenment thinkers, the contractarians, or the libertarians, Locke, Roseau, Paine, etc changed the nomenclature of these entitlements from “God-given” right to “human rights.” That notwithstanding the concept remained the same.
  
  After the Second World War and the coming of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the war-time leaders decided to stress and concretize the point that these “human rights” were “fundamental” and could not be traded for anything. That was how come we now refer to them as “fundamental human rights”. To this extent, one cannot legitimately or seriously argue that there is a difference between “god-given” rights and “fundamental” rights. The two terms refer to the same “inherent” and “inalienable” rights, found in the American and the French declarations. One thing ran through all these changes – no one enjoyed these entitlements as of right unless they are made “positive” by a human sovereign. Thus, to be meaningful “rights” must always be elevated from “god-made” to “man-made”. Accordingly, the two “- mades” can co-exist. In fact the former “–made” means nothing unless it transforms into the latter “-made”. Having established this, I now proceed to explain why I think Mr. Lithur was not wrong with his permutation – “fundamental”, “inalienable” and “God-given”.
  
  The Drafters of our constitutions, 1979 and 1992 were informed by this new terminology of “fundamental human rights”, for which reason the Chapter V of our current Constitution is titled “The FUNDAMENTAL Human Rights and Freedoms”. “Fundamental” was used to underscore the difference between the civil and political rights in Chapter V and the Economic, Social and Cultural rights provided for under Chapter VI and titled the “Directive Principles of State Policy”. This use of “Fundamental” by the drafter of our Constitution to distinguish the civil and political rights is not new in the world. India’s 1950 Constitution uses the same language to distinguish between the two categories of rights. The European Convention also uses “Fundamental” (Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and FUNDAMENTAL Freedoms).
  
  Prof.’s disagreement is that Mr. Lithur used “fundamental” and “god-given” to qualify the right to vote; and that that description is wrong in law. He advanced to say that the right to vote is “positive” or “man-made.” Indeed, Prof would have been right before 2010 when the case of Ahumah-Ocansey v. the EC was not decided by the Supreme Court. However, since Prof. made his assertion just on Wednesday, August 7, 2013, over two years after that landmark case was decided, he could not still be right. What I am saying is that Mr. Tony Lithur (not Prof.) was very right by qualifying the right to vote as “fundamental” or “god-given.” The reason is as follows:
  
  At the tail end of Chapter V – the “FUNDAMENTAL Human Rights and Freedoms” – of the 1992 Constitution is a provision - Article 33(5). That Provision allows a rights which is not part of Chapter V (the “Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms) but which nonetheless is “considered to be inherent in a democracy and intended to secure the freedom and dignity of man” to be added to Chapter V as “Fundamental”. In other words, a right which is not already “fundamental” but which meets the criteria in Article 33(5) may be added to Chapter V by the Supreme Court and made “fundamental” or “god-give” or “inalienable” and be treated as such. That was exactly what the Supreme Court did in 2010 in the Ahumah-Ocansey case. Therefore since that day, the right to vote, which was hitherto a mere Constitutional right under Article 42, has been elevated to the level of “Fundamental Human Rights”. In effect, that right, since that day, has become part of Chapter V and is therefore “fundamental.” Really, if we were living in the day of St. Thomas Aquinas, we would have called it “God-given” or better still “natural” if we were living in the day of Plato.
  
  Prof. also implies in his critique of Mr. Lithur that the right to vote is nowhere in the world treated as a “god-given” or “fundamental” right. That too cannot be a correct statement of the reality. So, let us step onto the international plane to see if Ghana’s Supreme Court is alone in this transaction of designating the right to vote as “fundamental”.
  
  In the Canadian case of Sauvé v. the Attorney General of Canada (No. 2), the majority opinion given by McLachlin C.J. considered that the right to vote was “fundamental” to their democracy and the rule of law and could not be lightly set aside. In the South African case of August and another v. Electoral Commission & Ors., the Constitutional Court stated that “[t]he universality of the franchise is important not only for nationhood and democracy. The vote of each and every citizen is a badge of dignity and personhood. Quite literally, it says that everybody counts." It cannot be reasonable disputed that democracy itself is widely considered as a “Fundamental” human right. Finally, in Hirst v. UK the European Court of Human Rights states that “the right to vote is not a privilege. In the twenty-first century, the presumption in a democratic State must be in favour of inclusion.” The continental Court continues: “prisoners in general continue to enjoy all the FUNDAMENTAL rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention.”
  
  So it is quite clear at this stage that the right to vote, though initially a privilege within the bosom of the sovereign, who uses legislation – “positive law” – to decide to whom it should be given and when it should be given and withheld, has transformed greatly into a “fundamental” right which could not be arbitrarily limited; not even by the sovereign. The right is no more purely a “positive” law matter.
  
  Now I turn to some house-keeping matters. While reading the comments under Prof.’s Facebook post, which post became the subject of the news item, I noticed some commentators busily making their own points and drawing some analogies. Some of the analogies sought to suggest that “fundamental” mean “absolute” or “unrestrained”. So, Mr. Lithur’s pronouncement was taken to mean that voting right is absolute. In fact, one person even stated that if the right is fundamental then there was no need to register before voting and also that there could be no age-limit. They conclude that the fact that the right to vote is limited by age and procedures of voting means that they are not fundamental or inalienable as Mr. Lithur argued. I think that is very unfortunate an argument to make. The right to personal liberty is “fundamental” but is not unlimited. The right to free speech and even the right to life are all fundamental but are not unlimited. Suffice it to say that that line of reasoning is unhelpful.
  
  I end!
  
  The writer is a practising Ghanaian Lawyer in the UK.

  reply
• C.Y. ANDY-K 10 years ago

  Simple Man,
  
  Yours is a brilliant contribution on the evolution of fundamental rights, and I wish many readers read it.
  
  You are absolutely right in your lucid exposition but I guess, you, like most, has missed the essen ...
  read full comment

  Simple Man,
  
  Yours is a brilliant contribution on the evolution of fundamental rights, and I wish many readers read it.
  
  You are absolutely right in your lucid exposition but I guess, you, like most, has missed the essence of HKP's jab at the literal imposition of God into the Ghanaian electoral/ political space. I am sure HKP is equally aware of what you have written but still wrote what he did.
  
  Look, on the Ghanaian scene, people are not only invoking god as a metaphor or synonym to, say, fundamental or natural. They literally believe in a supreme being directly intervening to make them win elections, and in this case, the source of those inalienable rights like voting. They are therefore thinking and acting in Middle Age terms! That's what HKP was jabbing at, with tongue in cheek, when he remarked that he hoped He (God) did not appear in the summation of justices of the SC too.
  
  Let us limit ourselves to modern, post-Enlightenment nomenclature, and not Middle Age terminology and beliefs and those of us who are modernists and obdurant pagans in its original sense of non-believers shall leave the superstitious believers alone. No god gave anybody any rights whatsoever because no god created human beings and, btw, the universe! Simple as that!
  
  Period!
  
  Andy-K

  reply
• YF 10 years ago

  So you are not an Ashanti ? Where from this name? You steal everything including names and even a clause to add to the constitution of Ghana to make it look real.Ayigbefuo mo ye shame to where you came from, the only anti Gha ...
  read full comment

  So you are not an Ashanti ? Where from this name? You steal everything including names and even a clause to add to the constitution of Ghana to make it look real.Ayigbefuo mo ye shame to where you came from, the only anti Ghanaian tribe in Ghana.You people hate Ghana so much that I don't really know why you are still in Ghana.Thank God our northern people know they have one and only one nation Ghana.

  reply
• GENERAL DeGAULE 10 years ago

  Spot on mate. Nice one.

  Spot on mate. Nice one.

  reply
• SGT ANANI FIADZOE 10 years ago

  I am yet encounter an African 'prof' who acts like a western prof. While the African prof will spin issues to support his favourite the western prof will treat the issue on its merit.
  
  Education is the bane of Africa. Money ...
  read full comment

  I am yet encounter an African 'prof' who acts like a western prof. While the African prof will spin issues to support his favourite the western prof will treat the issue on its merit.
  
  Education is the bane of Africa. Money is wasted to train greedy persons who only use their knowledge to steal what belongs to the rest of us. In deed, BOKO HARAM is totally the right philosophy!

  reply
• KAY TEYE 10 years ago

  WHERE DID YOU GET THAT FROM STUPID SO CALLED SGT

  WHERE DID YOU GET THAT FROM STUPID SO CALLED SGT

  reply
• insight to the bone 10 years ago

  it is nothing new that the great minds and leaders of the Akans are being continuously persecuted , killed or slandered by non Akans at the drop of a hat , now the time has come for freedom from these rivers of Babylon , the ...
  read full comment

  it is nothing new that the great minds and leaders of the Akans are being continuously persecuted , killed or slandered by non Akans at the drop of a hat , now the time has come for freedom from these rivers of Babylon , the lord shall set us free as he so delivered the children of isreal from Egypt so shall the time come to free us from these evil pepeni and ayigbe devils with their traitors amongst us. we are now ready to fight in any way or form as victory is ours . there will be no mercy for these collaborators and traitors as it is necessary to wipe out their mutant genes by taking out their parents brothers and cousins who have also been polluted by this ndc greed. forward ever backward never , long live the republic of Akan

  reply
• ohara fii 10 years ago

  You want to know where he got that from,it came from KWASI PREMPEH. Hypocracy is killing african intellectuals that makes the white counterpart not to take us seriously.Its a disgrace for kwasi Prempeh not to have heard it co ...
  read full comment

  You want to know where he got that from,it came from KWASI PREMPEH. Hypocracy is killing african intellectuals that makes the white counterpart not to take us seriously.Its a disgrace for kwasi Prempeh not to have heard it come from Akuffo Addo but able to accuse the President of saying what the PEACE COUNCIL was urging the parties to declare before the ruling.

  reply
• KUKRUDU 10 years ago

  SGT IS RIGHT!!! AFRICAN PROFESSOR IS AN EMPTY BARRELL - ESECIALLY THE MADE IN GHANA & THE USA ONES!!!

  SGT IS RIGHT!!! AFRICAN PROFESSOR IS AN EMPTY BARRELL - ESECIALLY THE MADE IN GHANA & THE USA ONES!!!

  reply
• 007 JAMES BOND 10 years ago

  Waoo!!!!!!!!!!!! K.Boat,this is what I call (smartness).You are really smart.Thank you.

  Waoo!!!!!!!!!!!! K.Boat,this is what I call (smartness).You are really smart.Thank you.

  reply
• PK 10 years ago

  All that long quote from Nana doesn't answer the issue Prof. Prempeh is raising. To the extent that any political system is man-made, so are the rights flowing therefrom. Lithur was wrong about the right to vote being God-giv ...
  read full comment

  All that long quote from Nana doesn't answer the issue Prof. Prempeh is raising. To the extent that any political system is man-made, so are the rights flowing therefrom. Lithur was wrong about the right to vote being God-given; so was Tsikata about annulment of votes being "retroactive penalty".
  
  And, by the way, Nana Addo's point that in democratic elections the ballot is sacred is correct. But this doesn't mean that a ballot cast illegally must be tolerated. Similarly, if "administrative duties" are used to compromise or defile the sanctity of a ballot, the latter loses its sanctity and must be expiated. And that's precisely what the EC did when results from some polling stations were cancelled because an over-vote of just one ballot paper was deemed to have compromised the entire voting process in those polling stations. Now, are you telling us that the EC erred in this instance because they visited the sin of one voter, who put in the box more than on ballot paper, on the rest of the voters in those polling stations? The principle of "one man, one vote" is what preserves the sanctity of the ballot. To the extent that someone votes twice, or electoral officers manipulate entries on "pink sheets", the ballot loses sanctity. This shouldn't be too difficult for even a bonehead like K. Boateng to understand?

  reply
• SEAL 10 years ago

  Oh, Ghanaians in typical fashion insulting each other in the name of politics.
  
  Accept it or reject it voting is not a God-given right, period. Is there any instance of voting in the Bible or the Koran? If so, kindly enligh ...
  read full comment

  Oh, Ghanaians in typical fashion insulting each other in the name of politics.
  
  Accept it or reject it voting is not a God-given right, period. Is there any instance of voting in the Bible or the Koran? If so, kindly enlighten me.
  
  Was it God who said that persons under 18 are not qualified to vote?
  
  Are you trying to say that Tony Lithur was quoting Akufo Addo? Is Akufo Addo now his resource person?
  
  Akufo Addo was wrong, and so was Tony Lithur.
  
  Voting came from Democracy and Democracy was invented by man.

  reply
• MINOR CASE 10 years ago

  This K Boateng guy is such a moron. Either he did not read the the whole statement. Of the Prof. or did not understand what he read. It is the man made constitution that determines who should vote or not.That is why crazy pe ...
  read full comment

  This K Boateng guy is such a moron. Either he did not read the the whole statement. Of the Prof. or did not understand what he read. It is the man made constitution that determines who should vote or not.That is why crazy people , children ,and in most countries ,prisoners are not allowed to vote .In a civilized country ,a moron like this K Boateng would not be allowed to vote. Who votes is therefore determined by the constitution made by man . Simple.

  reply
• Nelson Mandela 10 years ago

  ".......God-given right of a citizen casting his or her ballot". You just learned from the Professor's explanation that voting is not a God-given right but a right emanating from positive law and then you repeat same in your ...
  read full comment

  ".......God-given right of a citizen casting his or her ballot". You just learned from the Professor's explanation that voting is not a God-given right but a right emanating from positive law and then you repeat same in your comment. Why can't some of you imbibe simple knowledge? Is it a curse or what?

  reply
• Nicholas J Bedzo 10 years ago

  Count God,s name from your foolish
  delibration, you crooks.

  Count God,s name from your foolish
  delibration, you crooks.

  reply
• Ghana 10 years ago

  Every benkoto like this idiotic K Boateng think they are clever when they don't even understand what they quote. What you quoted here has nothing to do with what Professor Prempeh is talking about.

  Every benkoto like this idiotic K Boateng think they are clever when they don't even understand what they quote. What you quoted here has nothing to do with what Professor Prempeh is talking about.

  reply
• Truth 10 years ago

  Why did he not attack Akuffo Addo who is credited with that statement?
  Another stupid Ashanti/Akyem idiot professor. Stay in your shell at that school in Newark, New Jersey. You could have been in Addison's shoes sweating l ...
  read full comment

  Why did he not attack Akuffo Addo who is credited with that statement?
  Another stupid Ashanti/Akyem idiot professor. Stay in your shell at that school in Newark, New Jersey. You could have been in Addison's shoes sweating like they have poured hot water on you. Shut up, fool.

  reply
• hermit 10 years ago

  Who ever you are your attack on personality and not the argument is pathetic. Another of the ghanaweb idiots who jump on any thing and start raining insults without having a deeper understanding. this is not the place for foo ...
  read full comment

  Who ever you are your attack on personality and not the argument is pathetic. Another of the ghanaweb idiots who jump on any thing and start raining insults without having a deeper understanding. this is not the place for fools.

  reply
• GHANABA 1 10 years ago

  Tony Lithur is combining Law and religion.I guess this guy is totally confused,Mr.Prempeh should not waste his time to teach such an ignorant

  Tony Lithur is combining Law and religion.I guess this guy is totally confused,Mr.Prempeh should not waste his time to teach such an ignorant

  reply
• EBO MENDS, NEW YORK 10 years ago

  Was Nana Akufo-Addo confused when he said exact same thing after the elections? I don't remember the learned Prof. coming out to "School" Nana then. This is the selective outrage that is killing our country and people. I am ...
  read full comment

  Was Nana Akufo-Addo confused when he said exact same thing after the elections? I don't remember the learned Prof. coming out to "School" Nana then. This is the selective outrage that is killing our country and people. I am sure the Prof was aware of Nana's comments as well. Or was he?

  reply
• BRAVEBOY 10 years ago

  Who the hell gave a doctorate to such a fool. I will not even discuss this topic.
  I wish Ghanaian reporters stop this tittle worship and starting articles with life accolades of their subjects.
  
  On what basis is the EU t ...
  read full comment

  Who the hell gave a doctorate to such a fool. I will not even discuss this topic.
  I wish Ghanaian reporters stop this tittle worship and starting articles with life accolades of their subjects.
  
  On what basis is the EU trying to force the European countries to allow prisoners to vote.

  reply
• K. Boateng 10 years ago

  Kwasi Prempeh was one of the guys with Asamoah Boadi who joined the NPP in 1999-2000 with their deceptive CDD claiming to be neutural but were cynically working behind the scenes with the NPP to win power with skewed and slan ...
  read full comment

  Kwasi Prempeh was one of the guys with Asamoah Boadi who joined the NPP in 1999-2000 with their deceptive CDD claiming to be neutural but were cynically working behind the scenes with the NPP to win power with skewed and slanted polls to favor Kuffuor.

  reply
• BRAVEBOY 10 years ago

  Boateng.. if we do not have a fundamental right to vote, then let us tell the military to take over. I can actually derive the right to vote from several natural laws, but these whole issues of natural, positive, bad laws are ...
  read full comment

  Boateng.. if we do not have a fundamental right to vote, then let us tell the military to take over. I can actually derive the right to vote from several natural laws, but these whole issues of natural, positive, bad laws are very debatable areas in law.

  reply
• OPPONG 10 years ago

  ANOTHER MANKANIFUFUO AND GARITO PROFESSOR. ABI NANA PROMISE HIM FOR MINSTERIAL APPOINTMENT SO EVERYTHING NO THINK BEFORE HE TALK.

  ANOTHER MANKANIFUFUO AND GARITO PROFESSOR. ABI NANA PROMISE HIM FOR MINSTERIAL APPOINTMENT SO EVERYTHING NO THINK BEFORE HE TALK.

  reply
• kusi 10 years ago

  why is it that this stupid idiot did not come to be counsel for this thieves .

  why is it that this stupid idiot did not come to be counsel for this thieves .

  reply
• Marquis 10 years ago

  I believe voting is the basic fundamental requirement for democracy or constitutional governance to be effective. So if the citizens dont have the God given right then we really dont need parties and people to lead us.

  I believe voting is the basic fundamental requirement for democracy or constitutional governance to be effective. So if the citizens dont have the God given right then we really dont need parties and people to lead us.

  reply
• DAN 10 years ago

  unless your a convict in usa( ndc lawyers) you have no right to vote..

  unless your a convict in usa( ndc lawyers) you have no right to vote..

  reply
• princewilly@ymail.com 10 years ago

  There was a long line of souls before the gate of Heaven and Hell. Waiting on line beside each other were two residents of New York City, a taxi driver and a priest and they started chatting to kill the time. Finally, it was ...
  read full comment

  There was a long line of souls before the gate of Heaven and Hell. Waiting on line beside each other were two residents of New York City, a taxi driver and a priest and they started chatting to kill the time. Finally, it was the taxi driver's turn to be judged; after talking with God for a few minutes, he was allowed to enter heaven. The priest came after him and had his few minutes with God. He, however, was sent to hell.
  
  Needless to say, the priest was pretty surprised by this turn of events and asked God why he, who had constantly talked to people about God, had been sent to hell and a taxi driver was going to heaven. God replied, “We judge whether one goes to heaven not by the words he has said but the deeds he has done on the earth. While you talked about God, people slept, but they all remembered me when he drove."

  reply
• DALLAS TEXAS 10 years ago

  NPP people are just laud but knows nothing. Retroactive penalty or punishment is legal term. Gloria Akuffo has to go back to law school ano wonder she was working under Akuffo Addo (a pocket lawyer) without a certificate. Ash ...
  read full comment

  NPP people are just laud but knows nothing. Retroactive penalty or punishment is legal term. Gloria Akuffo has to go back to law school ano wonder she was working under Akuffo Addo (a pocket lawyer) without a certificate. Ashantis, a breed of animals that hate school and wll use money to buy credentials...Ewes are smart,just compare and contrast tsatsu address with that of Addison
  Prof u are another idiotu, another stupid ashanti go do a little bit of literature so u can know how to public speak and do persuasive argument in law. The constitution is "ALMIGHTY"so the right to vote is fundamental and can be refered to as a God-given right. why are ashantis so stupid????

  reply
• TEXAS 10 years ago

  Prof u are another idiotu, another stupid ashanti go do a little bit of literature so u can know how to public speak and do persuasive argument in law. The constitution is "ALMIGHTY"so the right to vote is fundamental and can ...
  read full comment

  Prof u are another idiotu, another stupid ashanti go do a little bit of literature so u can know how to public speak and do persuasive argument in law. The constitution is "ALMIGHTY"so the right to vote is fundamental and can be refered to as a God-given right. why are ashantis so stupid????

  reply
• Yaw(Virginia) 10 years ago

  NDC Fools if you listen to the esteemed Baylor University and Yale educated legal luminary, you may learn a thing or two. You NDC guys are so stupid you're simply irredeemable. The man will not waste his time indulging nincom ...
  read full comment

  NDC Fools if you listen to the esteemed Baylor University and Yale educated legal luminary, you may learn a thing or two. You NDC guys are so stupid you're simply irredeemable. The man will not waste his time indulging nincompoops in a debate. He's too busy for anything petty and trivial.

  reply
• Adom 10 years ago

  That same Prempeh man told akuffo Morning Cloud Addo to do a press conference after filing a suit at the supreme court. His views are taken so seriously by NPP that he has led them into a quagmire. But one thing so funny abou ...
  read full comment

  That same Prempeh man told akuffo Morning Cloud Addo to do a press conference after filing a suit at the supreme court. His views are taken so seriously by NPP that he has led them into a quagmire. But one thing so funny about him is that he keeps going on and on and on into the wrong direction but does not care a hoot. Akuffo addo himself is empty; goes about making contradictory positons in public and all they do is applaud his emptiness

  reply
• George 10 years ago

  thank you for a very factual observation.

  thank you for a very factual observation.

  reply
• Chris 10 years ago

  Rights which are alienable are rights automatically endowed by birth. The right to vote in a particular jurisdiction is a right flowing from birth and since been born is a right from God, such rights emanating from creation ...
  read full comment

  Rights which are alienable are rights automatically endowed by birth. The right to vote in a particular jurisdiction is a right flowing from birth and since been born is a right from God, such rights emanating from creation are referred to in law as God giving right. Please rethink.

  reply
• Robin Hood 10 years ago

  We told you so NDC that your so-calees legal luminaries are hollow and half- baked but you insulted us.Some of us wonder who in his right mind will task poorly-trained Tony Lithur and Abraham Amaliba,pathetic third class lawy ...
  read full comment

  We told you so NDC that your so-calees legal luminaries are hollow and half- baked but you insulted us.Some of us wonder who in his right mind will task poorly-trained Tony Lithur and Abraham Amaliba,pathetic third class lawyers,to fight such an important legal battle at the Supreme Court.What a shame!

  reply
• KPOSEGI 10 years ago

  HE CALLED HIMSELF APROFESSOR? SHIIIIIT AND NO COMMENT. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHA

  HE CALLED HIMSELF APROFESSOR? SHIIIIIT AND NO COMMENT. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHA

  reply
• Kay 10 years ago

  He doesn't call himself a professor, he earned it. You retarded ndc man!

  He doesn't call himself a professor, he earned it. You retarded ndc man!

  reply
• HENRY SAAH 10 years ago

  Another follish Ashanti retarded idiot! You mother fucker shit eater did not see the bible quotations of your useless wee smoker Akufo Addo,but has found it strange for the NDC lawyer.Stupid things like you are the problem Gh ...
  read full comment

  Another follish Ashanti retarded idiot! You mother fucker shit eater did not see the bible quotations of your useless wee smoker Akufo Addo,but has found it strange for the NDC lawyer.Stupid things like you are the problem Ghana,and for that matter the wholes world had got to deal with.You are brainless Ashanti animal shit eating idiot.Yaka gbomo! Your wee smoking arrogant and good for nothing seventy yearl old Akufo Addo will never and never be president of this country,no matter what rubbish bush clones like you spit out of your shit eating mouths.Naniama!

  reply
• Allotey 10 years ago

  If this article was meant to show that Mr. Lithur's statement was incorrect then I am afraid I can't get it. I dont care whether the Professor is a founding member of... wee growers association or whatever. The article is sim ...
  read full comment

  If this article was meant to show that Mr. Lithur's statement was incorrect then I am afraid I can't get it. I dont care whether the Professor is a founding member of... wee growers association or whatever. The article is simply emphasizing the academic credentials of the Professor. Why are SYMPATHISERS of the petitioners becoming hysterical about simple expressions? God given right is understood by students of Kimbu Sec-Tec. I am sorry

  reply
• dada 10 years ago

  k.prempeh has a good record.go back to legon and ask of him.even in the u s,he excells .his academic record is uncomparable.ghanaians should be proud to have such an intelligent guy. listen to him and don´ be bias

  k.prempeh has a good record.go back to legon and ask of him.even in the u s,he excells .his academic record is uncomparable.ghanaians should be proud to have such an intelligent guy. listen to him and don´ be bias

  reply
• George 10 years ago

  i'll never be proud of a tribal bigots and intellectually dishonest fools like K.Prempeh and co.
  fire burn them all!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  i'll never be proud of a tribal bigots and intellectually dishonest fools like K.Prempeh and co.
  fire burn them all!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  reply
• GENERAL DeGAULE 10 years ago

  Is Freedom God given or made made? Who and what is God and how does he involve himself in the affairs of man? The context of God Given can not mean anything more than the rights of a free man. If the Constitution enshrines th ...
  read full comment

  Is Freedom God given or made made? Who and what is God and how does he involve himself in the affairs of man? The context of God Given can not mean anything more than the rights of a free man. If the Constitution enshrines the rights of man as inalienably derived from God and if the Constitution gives every man the right to vote ; then the right to vote is endorsed by God. How about that?

  reply
• Opoku 10 years ago

  Exodus 18:20-21 Teach them the decrees and laws, and the way to live and the duties they are to perform. BUT SELECT CAPABLE MEN FROM ALL THE PEOPLE-MEN WHO FEAR GOD, TRUSTWORTHY MEN WHO HATE DISHOSNEST GAIN-AND APPOINT THEM A ...
  read full comment

  Exodus 18:20-21 Teach them the decrees and laws, and the way to live and the duties they are to perform. BUT SELECT CAPABLE MEN FROM ALL THE PEOPLE-MEN WHO FEAR GOD, TRUSTWORTHY MEN WHO HATE DISHOSNEST GAIN-AND APPOINT THEM AS OFFICIALS OVER THOUSAND, HUNDREDS, FIFTIES AND TENS.
  
  The way used to select able, trustworthy and honest men is not important as the men. If domocracy can be used to archieve these requirements, then good it is from God, if not, then we should ask God for wisdom.

  reply
• KOIT Pice 10 years ago

  Tell your nPP self seekers to go back and learn the truth. Ghanaians have seen their lies and this is pushing them further beyond the middle of the forest. Tell the woman petition spokesman her personal respect and dignity ar ...
  read full comment

  Tell your nPP self seekers to go back and learn the truth. Ghanaians have seen their lies and this is pushing them further beyond the middle of the forest. Tell the woman petition spokesman her personal respect and dignity are eroding fast because of the lies they continue to tell.

  reply
• Appletus 10 years ago

  What did Tony say exactly? Sometimes at these highly charged presentations people are bound to say things otherwise. Who does not know that voting is a constitutional right? Of course first year Law students should know ...
  read full comment

  What did Tony say exactly? Sometimes at these highly charged presentations people are bound to say things otherwise. Who does not know that voting is a constitutional right? Of course first year Law students should know this. By the way, isnt law about arguments and interpretation of statutes?
  This is little fry for a big so called professor to to talk about

  reply
• Woatsiawo Kwabla/ atl,ga. 10 years ago

  WE ARE REDUCING OURSELFS BY QUALIFYING AND CALLING ANYONE WHO SPEAKS IN FAVOUR OF NPP A PROFESSOR.MOST OF THESE PEOPLE WASH DISHES/PLATES AT GOLDEN CORAL AND BURGER KING RESTAURANTS.

  WE ARE REDUCING OURSELFS BY QUALIFYING AND CALLING ANYONE WHO SPEAKS IN FAVOUR OF NPP A PROFESSOR.MOST OF THESE PEOPLE WASH DISHES/PLATES AT GOLDEN CORAL AND BURGER KING RESTAURANTS.

  reply
• Ernest 10 years ago

  if something is fundamental it means God given. something which is right of someone means his God given right.
  This is common sense, when u people travel and reach that HELL country which legalised gay and lesbian, u dont sp ...
  read full comment

  if something is fundamental it means God given. something which is right of someone means his God given right.
  This is common sense, when u people travel and reach that HELL country which legalised gay and lesbian, u dont speak from you mind but from your stomach.

  reply
• Isaac Abrefa 10 years ago

  Mr. Prof, I do not agree with you at all. When you say constitutional right, it literally means ones human right. In Christian and Islamic countries our human rights are seen as our existence that emanates from God. These are ...
  read full comment

  Mr. Prof, I do not agree with you at all. When you say constitutional right, it literally means ones human right. In Christian and Islamic countries our human rights are seen as our existence that emanates from God. These are reasons why states have laws to protect the people, even the unborn child is protected by the law. The right to exist is a fundamental human right, which Christians refer to God. One cannot mix politics and religion but our morals would not allow us not to mention God when doing politics. The right to vote is a constitutional right, and it says be of a sound mind and be 18 years of age. When you are qualified no one can take it from you and that is what is refer to as ones natural right. You think Lithur did not know this. Every Lawyer, Presidents, Nana Addo and the rest make statements and refer to God. It does not mean they do not know that Politics and laws should not be mixed. Even Constitutions have a place for Religion and God. I hope as a Law Prof. you will not forget to teach your Students these bases. I am done.

  reply
• Look 10 years ago

  A Law Prof indeed. What the fuck is he talking about? What is his point?
  After importing mankani fufuo and Kusie meat to the States to eat,that's is all he can produce.

  A Law Prof indeed. What the fuck is he talking about? What is his point?
  After importing mankani fufuo and Kusie meat to the States to eat,that's is all he can produce.

  reply
• kwasi prempeh 10 years ago

  WHEN AKUFFO ADDO SAID ´´ THE BATTLE IS THE LORD´S´´ IS THE LORD COMING DOWN TO
  VOTE FOR HIM OR GHANAIANS ??????

  WHEN AKUFFO ADDO SAID ´´ THE BATTLE IS THE LORD´S´´ IS THE LORD COMING DOWN TO
  VOTE FOR HIM OR GHANAIANS ??????

  reply
• Solomon Dormenyo Quist 10 years ago

  What is the problem with these Ghanaian Professors in the USA. Does he seriously follow events as they unfold within the country in which he lives?. We must always be grateful to the Almighty that these learned men are not w ...
  read full comment

  What is the problem with these Ghanaian Professors in the USA. Does he seriously follow events as they unfold within the country in which he lives?. We must always be grateful to the Almighty that these learned men are not within the educational milieu of Ghana.
  
  President Obama earned one of the loudest rounds of applause during his fourth State of the Union address when he declared, "We must all do our part to make sure our God-given rights are protected here at home. That includes one of the most fundamental rights of democracy: the right to vote"
  
  From all indications the President of the USA will not speak ex tempore on such important date in the American calendar. It stands to reason that the speech would have been written by a person or persons suited to do so and would have been edited over and over again before presentation, or was it a slip of tongue?.
  
  Without any grounding in jurisprudence, I deductively stretched my imagination to the effect that, with my right to life as dictated the Almighty, when I reach the age to vote,barring anything that prohibits me from voting, I must exercise my franchise.What then?

  reply
• Osabere kotoko 10 years ago

  absolute nonsense! How can there be any sambelance of democracy if there is no right to vote? Where do positive right emanate from? Natural right? And where do constitutional rights come from? If you want to make a name for y ...
  read full comment

  absolute nonsense! How can there be any sambelance of democracy if there is no right to vote? Where do positive right emanate from? Natural right? And where do constitutional rights come from? If you want to make a name for your self you better do it the more intelligent way!

  reply
• samo jewellery 10 years ago

  If u need 18 karat yellow n white gold rings for yr wedding n engagement.....search samo jewellery on facebook for more pictures n attached prices...prices are moderate cos we do the mining ourself....we are located in kumasi ...
  read full comment

  If u need 18 karat yellow n white gold rings for yr wedding n engagement.....search samo jewellery on facebook for more pictures n attached prices...prices are moderate cos we do the mining ourself....we are located in kumasi,asafo inside spen n ben office...thus two buildings from Glo office....we haves reps in accra who works at renown banks so there is no cause for alarm.....anywere u are in ghana there is a way out to get yr rings...we customise rings for your taste and we have designs to suit your preference cos of the modern equipments we use....prices range from 890 gh cedis to 1200gh cedis for the 3set...call or whattsapp sam on 0574 913521 for info n more pictures on your fon.....we also have flexlble terms of payment because we do understand the economy

  reply
• Peter 10 years ago

  hello ghana, don't waste your breath on this empty prof, he teaches in a backyard community college just like okoampa ohoofe.
  in schools like that, the students are usually not intellectually engaging.
  but mark my words; if ...
  read full comment

  hello ghana, don't waste your breath on this empty prof, he teaches in a backyard community college just like okoampa ohoofe.
  in schools like that, the students are usually not intellectually engaging.
  but mark my words; if ever akkufo addo wins, this idiot will be made vice chancellor of the university of ghana. how sad!!!!

  reply
• Ken 10 years ago

  If you don't know something please ask. Communities colleges in the US don't offer any law. Unlike where you are, law in US is a graduate program, to say that the Prof teaches at community college just shows your ignorant and ...
  read full comment

  If you don't know something please ask. Communities colleges in the US don't offer any law. Unlike where you are, law in US is a graduate program, to say that the Prof teaches at community college just shows your ignorant and makes you look stupid. The report makes it clear that he teaches at Seton Hall University Law school. Seton Hall university is one of the best Catholic universities in the world. The Prof. also obtained his law degree from one the top law school s in the world, Yale university.

  reply
• Kwesi Mends, Takoradi 10 years ago

  The so-called Professor is disgracing himself and Seton Hall. I doubt he teaches law because what he said was a blunder. Below is the preamble of Ghana's constitution:
  THE CONSTITUTION
  
  OF THE
  
  REPUBLIC OF GHANA
  
  IN ...
  read full comment

  The so-called Professor is disgracing himself and Seton Hall. I doubt he teaches law because what he said was a blunder. Below is the preamble of Ghana's constitution:
  THE CONSTITUTION
  
  OF THE
  
  REPUBLIC OF GHANA
  
  IN THE NAME OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD
  
  We the People of Ghana,
  
  IN EXERCISE of our natural and inalienable right to establish a framework of government which shall secure for ourselves and posterity the blessings of liberty, equality of opportunity and prosperity;
  
  IN A SPIRIT of friendship and peace with all peoples of the world;
  
  AND IN SOLEMN declaration and affirmation of our commitment to;
  
  Freedom, Justice, Probity and Accountability;
  
  The Principle that all powers of Government spring from the Sovereign Will of the People;
  
  The Principle of Universal Adult Suffrage;
  
  The Rule of Law;
  
  The protection and preservation of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms, Unity and Stability for our Nation;
  
  DO HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTE

  reply
• K.Poku 10 years ago

  I think you didn't understand what the Professor said. One he doesn't disagree with you as voting being our fundamental human right. What he doesn't agree is voting being "God given right". To him there is a difference betwee ...
  read full comment

  I think you didn't understand what the Professor said. One he doesn't disagree with you as voting being our fundamental human right. What he doesn't agree is voting being "God given right". To him there is a difference between fundamental human right like the right to vote and "God given right" like the right to life. So he agrees with the preamble you keep bringing it up. The preamble talks about voting as fundamental human right but not God given right.

  reply
• stev 10 years ago

  A Professor who doesn't understand Ghanaian constitution. Which kind of Law is he teaching in US?

  A Professor who doesn't understand Ghanaian constitution. Which kind of Law is he teaching in US?

  reply
• NAA4U 10 years ago

  MR LAW PROFESSOR, DOES YOUR COMMENT REALLY MATTER? HOW IS WHETHER GOD-GIVEN OR NOT GOD-GIVEN AFFECT THE ISSUE AT STAKE THAT YOU SHOULD COMMENT ON IT AND SCHOOL LITHUR.
  
  WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOD-GIVEN AS USED BY LI ...
  read full comment

  MR LAW PROFESSOR, DOES YOUR COMMENT REALLY MATTER? HOW IS WHETHER GOD-GIVEN OR NOT GOD-GIVEN AFFECT THE ISSUE AT STAKE THAT YOU SHOULD COMMENT ON IT AND SCHOOL LITHUR.
  
  WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOD-GIVEN AS USED BY LITHUR AND SACRED AS USED BY NANA ADDO?
  
  PLEASE STOP USING YOUR BIASED ASHANTI LOGIC TO CHIDE AND FRUSTRATE OTHERS

  reply
• NAA4U 10 years ago

  WHY DONT YOU COMMENT ON THE SHAMEFUL PEFORMANCE OF YOUR LEAD COUNSEL ADDISON BUT RATHER COMMENTING ON WHAT YOUR OPPONENT LAWYER HAD SAID?

  WHY DONT YOU COMMENT ON THE SHAMEFUL PEFORMANCE OF YOUR LEAD COUNSEL ADDISON BUT RATHER COMMENTING ON WHAT YOUR OPPONENT LAWYER HAD SAID?

  reply
• Koby 10 years ago

  A professor who talk like an Illiterate

  A professor who talk like an Illiterate

  reply
• Seko 10 years ago

  the EC officials turned people away because their figer print could not be picked by BVM. Where was the God given right to those victims. Ghana will remian underdeveloped and be exploited by Chinese till the second coming of ...
  read full comment

  the EC officials turned people away because their figer print could not be picked by BVM. Where was the God given right to those victims. Ghana will remian underdeveloped and be exploited by Chinese till the second coming of Jesus.

  reply
• BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, ESQ. 10 years ago

  PLEASE,MAY GHANAIAN LAW PROFESSOR KWASI PREMPEH JUST TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THE PREAMBLE OF GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION AS BELOW AND TO MAKE HIS OWN ASSESSMENT OF HIS PURPORTED STATEMENT THOUGH IT WAS LEGISLATION BY HUMAN-BEINGS B ...
  read full comment

  PLEASE,MAY GHANAIAN LAW PROFESSOR KWASI PREMPEH JUST TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THE PREAMBLE OF GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION AS BELOW AND TO MAKE HIS OWN ASSESSMENT OF HIS PURPORTED STATEMENT THOUGH IT WAS LEGISLATION BY HUMAN-BEINGS BUT MADE IN THE NAME OF GOD AND THE SOVEREIGN WILL OF THE PEOPLE EXPRESSED THROUGH THE BALLOT BOX IN UNIVERSAL ADULT SUFFERAGE AND TO MAKE THE PROPER ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION AS BELOW:
  
  FROM: BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, ESQ.
  TO: EDITOR, GHANAWEB.COM
  READING PUBLIC OF GHANAWEB.COM
  LAWYER KOFI ABOTSI, SENIOR LAW LECTURER, GIMPA
  
  INFO TO:
  H.E.PRESIDENT JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA
  
  DATE: THURSDAY, AUGUST 8, 2013
  SUBJECT: TO RESPECTFULLY AND HUMBLY IN VIEW OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KNOW AND ALSO TO HAVE ADEQUATE QUALITY INFORMATION TO HELP THEM TO FORM THE RIGHT INFORMED OPINION OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL EVENTS THAT WOULD BRING UNDERSTANDING OF THE MATTER OR EVENT AND FOR THAT MATTER TO HELP PROMOTE PEACE THAT IT BEHOOVES ON THOSE WHO HAVE THE RIGHT ADEQUATE QUALITY INFORMATION TO SHARE IT TO HELP THE PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THE RUDIMENTS AND UNDERPINNINGS OF THE ISSUES AT STAKE.
  IT IS AT THESE RELATED BACKDROPS THAT THE FRAMERS OF GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION INSERTED THE PROVISIONS BELOW UNDER CHAPTER 005 ARTICLE 21 THAT PROVIDES FOR THE FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND FOR THE SAKE OF THE INSTANT SENSITIVE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ISSUE AT STAKE THAT THOSE WHO HAVE THE RIGHT ADEQUATE QUALITY INFORMATION WHICH OF COURSE, THE RIGHT KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE CAN RESORT TO SHARE AS EDUCATION TO DIFFUSE THOSE THAT RESORTED TO PUBLISHING INFLAMMATORY ARTICLES AND INCITING STATEMENTS.
  IT IS THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE THAT THE FRAMERS OF GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION IN CHAPTER 005 ARTICLE 21 AS SEEN BELOW:
  
  
  CHAPTER 005 OF GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION
  ARTICLE 21
  (1) All persons shall have the right to-
  (a) freedom of speech and expression, which shall include freedom of the press and other media;
  (b) freedom of thought, conscience and belief, which shall include academic freedom;
  
  General News of Thursday, 8 August 2013
  
  Source: citifmonline.com
  
  THEREFORE, H.E.PRESIDENT OF GHANA JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA COMMENTS TO BE SEEN IN GOOD FAITH WHEN OTHERS WERE CASTING ACCUSATIONS AND RESORTED TO PREPARING THE MINDSETS OF THOSE WHO ARE IGNORANT ABOUT THE PENDING PRESIDENTIAL 2012 ELECTIONS PETITION CHALLENGE ONGOING AT THE SUPREME COURT.
  
  THAT H.E.PRESIDENT MAHAMA STATEMENT OR COMMENT THAT "TRUTH IS ON HIS SIDE BECAUSE HE HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTIONS AND THE COURT WOULD VINDICATE HIM".
  
  THAT THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE STATEMENT IS AN HONEST COMMENT AND MADE IN GOOD FAITH BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IN HIS COMMENT SAID " HE WOULD ACCEPT THE SUPREME COURT VERDICT SINCE THE CONSTITUTION VESTED AUTHORITY IN THE SUPREME COURT AS THE HIGHEST AND LAST COURT AND AS LAST ARBITER AND ALSO URGED ALL OTHERS TO ACCEPT THE COURT VERDICT".
  
  THAT IT IS MY RESPECTFUL SUBMISSION THAT THE COMMENT WAS HONEST, FAITHFUL AND ALSO MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO HELP PROMOTE PEACE OF GHANA.
  
  THAT IT IS NOW MY CHALLENGE TO LAWYER KOFI ABOTSI, SENIOR LECTURER OF LAW AT GIMPA TO DEMONSTRATE BEYOND A VERY REASONABLE DOUBTS OF HIS PUBLICATION BELOW WHICH HAS/HAVE OR PORTRAYED ANY ELEMENT OF "CONTEMPT?"
  
  THAT THE ELEMENTS OR INGREDIENTS TO SHOW AND TO PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBTS BEFORE A CHARGE OF CONTEMPT CAN BE SUSTAINED NONE OF THE ELEMENTS ARE NOT IN THE PRESIDENT COMMENTS.
  
  THAT THE COMMENT WAS NOT MADE WITH "MALICE, BAD FAITH, TO INCITE OR TO RIDICULE" BUT IT WAS MADE IN GOOD FAITH.
  
  THAT FOR THE MERE FACT THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE PUBLISHING AND MAKING INFLAMMATORY STATEMENTS AND OTHERS THAT IT ALSO BEHOOVED ON THOSE WHO HAVE THE GOOD INTENT, GOOD FAITH, THE QUALITY KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND TO FREELY EXPRESS IT OR THEIR CONSCIENCE WITHOUT "FEAR ".
  
  THAT CONTEMPT OF COURT CITATION IS NOT MADE "INJECT FEAR IN PEOPLE" BUT TO MAKE PEOPLE TO BEHAVE RESPONSIBLY.
  
  IT IS THEREFORE MY RESPECTFUL SUBMISSION THAT H.E.PRESIDENT OF GHANA JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA COMMENT WAS MADE IN GOOD FAITH AND ALSO WITH HONEST BELIEF TO MAKE THE TRUTH TO EMERGE SINCE TRUTH ITSELF IS A DEFENCE OF CONTEMPT CITATION.
  
  RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
  
  GOD BLESS GHANA AND LONG LIVE GHANA !
  
  VERY TRULY YOURS,
  
  BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI
  
  INTERNATIONAL LAWYER/LEGAL CONSULTANT
  Mahama’s comments could have been avoided – Lawyer
  
  Email this
  
  Share This
  [Close]
  
  Print This
  
  Comments (30)
  
  
  
  
  On Thursday, August 8, 2013 1:29 PM, benony amekudzi wrote:
  
  
  CHAPTER 005 OF GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION
  ARTICLE 21
  
  
  (1) All persons shall have the right to-
  (a) freedom of speech and expression, which shall include freedom of the press and other media;
  (b) freedom of thought, conscience and belief, which shall include academic freedom;
  
  THE PREAMBLE
  
  
  THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REBUPLIC OF GHANA 1992
  IN THE NAME OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD
  We the People of Ghana,
  
  cs5 master collection mac oem
  IN EXERCISE of our natural and inalienable right to establish a framework of government which shall
  secure for ourselves and posterity the blessing of liberty, equality of opportunity and prosperity;
  IN A SPIRIT of friendship and peace with all peoples of the world:
  AND IN SOLEMN declaration and affirmation of our commitment to;
  Freedom, Justice, probity and accountability;
  The principle that all powers of Government spring from the sovereign Will of the people;
  The Principle of Universal Adult Suffrage;
  The Rule of Law;
  buy cheap adobe captivate 3 oem download
  The protection and preservation of fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms, Unity and Stability for our Nation
  DO HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION
  
  
  CHAPTER 001
  
  THE CONSTITUTION
  THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REBUPLIC OF GHANA 1992
  1
  (1) 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 in the manner and within the limits laid down in this Constitution.
  (2) 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.
  World Wide view of ghana and constitution
  The Fastest FTPS anywhere, FREE Go FTP
  
  
  CHAPTER 011
  THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REBUPLIC OF GHANA 1992
  THE JUDICIARY
  General
  125
  (1) Justice emanates from the people and shall be administered in the name of the Republic by the Judiciary which shall be independent and subject only to this Constitution.
  cheap adobe CS5 MAC oem
  (2) Citizens may exercise popular participation in the administration of justice through the institutions of public and customary tribunals and the jury and assessor systems.
  
  
  CHAPTER 011
  THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REBUPLIC OF GHANA 1992
  THE JUDICIARY
  General
  125
  (1) Justice emanates from the people and shall be administered in the name of the Republic by the Judiciary which shall be independent and subject only to this Constitution.
  cheap adobe CS5 MAC oem
  (2) Citizens may exercise popular participation in the administration of justice through the institutions of public and customary tribunals and the jury and assessor systems.
  
  CHAPTER 005 OF GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION
  ARTICLE 21
  (1) All persons shall have the right to-
  (a) freedom of speech and expression, which shall include freedom of the press and other media;
  (b) freedom of thought, conscience and belief, which shall include academic freedom;
  
  
  FROM: BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, ESQ.
  TO: EDITOR, GHANAWEB.COM
  READING PUBLIC OF GHANAWEB.COM
  LAWYER KOFI ABOTSI, SENIOR LAW LECTURER, GIMPA
  
  INFO TO:
  H.E.PRESIDENT JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA
  
  DATE: THURSDAY, AUGUST 8, 2013
  SUBJECT: TO RESPECTFULLY AND HUMBLY IN VIEW OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KNOW AND ALSO TO HAVE ADEQUATE QUALITY INFORMATION TO HELP THEM TO FORM THE RIGHT INFORMED OPINION OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL EVENTS THAT WOULD BRING UNDERSTANDING OF THE MATTER OR EVENT AND FOR THAT MATTER TO HELP PROMOTE PEACE THAT IT BEHOOVES ON THOSE WHO HAVE THE RIGHT ADEQUATE QUALITY INFORMATION TO SHARE IT TO HELP THE PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THE RUDIMENTS AND UNDERPINNINGS OF THE ISSUES AT STAKE.
  IT IS AT THESE RELATED BACKDROPS THAT THE FRAMERS OF GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION INSERTED THE PROVISIONS BELOW UNDER CHAPTER 005 ARTICLE 21 THAT PROVIDES FOR THE FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND FOR THE SAKE OF THE INSTANT SENSITIVE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ISSUE AT STAKE THAT THOSE WHO HAVE THE RIGHT ADEQUATE QUALITY INFORMATION WHICH OF COURSE, THE RIGHT KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE CAN RESORT TO SHARE AS EDUCATION TO DIFFUSE THOSE THAT RESORTED TO PUBLISHING INFLAMMATORY ARTICLES AND INCITING STATEMENTS.
  IT IS THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE THAT THE FRAMERS OF GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION IN CHAPTER 005 ARTICLE 21 AS SEEN BELOW:
  
  
  CHAPTER 005 OF GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION
  ARTICLE 21
  (1) All persons shall have the right to-
  (a) freedom of speech and expression, which shall include freedom of the press and other media;
  (b) freedom of thought, conscience and belief, which shall include academic freedom;
  
  General News of Thursday, 8 August 2013
  
  Source: citifmonline.com
  
  THEREFORE, H.E.PRESIDENT OF GHANA JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA COMMENTS TO BE SEEN IN GOOD FAITH WHEN OTHERS WERE CASTING ACCUSATIONS AND RESORTED TO PREPARING THE MINDSETS OF THOSE WHO ARE IGNORANT ABOUT THE PENDING PRESIDENTIAL 2012 ELECTIONS PETITION CHALLENGE ONGOING AT THE SUPREME COURT.
  
  THAT H.E.PRESIDENT MAHAMA STATEMENT OR COMMENT THAT "TRUTH IS ON HIS SIDE BECAUSE HE HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTIONS AND THE COURT WOULD VINDICATE HIM".
  
  THAT THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE STATEMENT IS AN HONEST COMMENT AND MADE IN GOOD FAITH BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IN HIS COMMENT SAID " HE WOULD ACCEPT THE SUPREME COURT VERDICT SINCE THE CONSTITUTION VESTED AUTHORITY IN THE SUPREME COURT AS THE HIGHEST AND LAST COURT AND AS LAST ARBITER AND ALSO URGED ALL OTHERS TO ACCEPT THE COURT VERDICT".
  
  THAT IT IS MY RESPECTFUL SUBMISSION THAT THE COMMENT WAS HONEST, FAITHFUL AND ALSO MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO HELP PROMOTE PEACE OF GHANA.
  
  THAT IT IS NOW MY CHALLENGE TO LAWYER KOFI ABOTSI, SENIOR LECTURER OF LAW AT GIMPA TO DEMONSTRATE BEYOND A VERY REASONABLE DOUBTS OF HIS PUBLICATION BELOW WHICH HAS/HAVE OR PORTRAYED ANY ELEMENT OF "CONTEMPT?"
  
  THAT THE ELEMENTS OR INGREDIENTS TO SHOW AND TO PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBTS BEFORE A CHARGE OF CONTEMPT CAN BE SUSTAINED NONE OF THE ELEMENTS ARE NOT IN THE PRESIDENT COMMENTS.
  
  THAT THE COMMENT WAS NOT MADE WITH "MALICE, BAD FAITH, TO INCITE OR TO RIDICULE" BUT IT WAS MADE IN GOOD FAITH.
  
  THAT FOR THE MERE FACT THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE PUBLISHING AND MAKING INFLAMMATORY STATEMENTS AND OTHERS THAT IT ALSO BEHOOVED ON THOSE WHO HAVE THE GOOD INTENT, GOOD FAITH, THE QUALITY KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND TO FREELY EXPRESS IT OR THEIR CONSCIENCE WITHOUT "FEAR ".
  
  THAT CONTEMPT OF COURT CITATION IS NOT MADE "INJECT FEAR IN PEOPLE" BUT TO MAKE PEOPLE TO BEHAVE RESPONSIBLY.
  
  IT IS THEREFORE MY RESPECTFUL SUBMISSION THAT H.E.PRESIDENT OF GHANA JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA COMMENT WAS MADE IN GOOD FAITH AND ALSO WITH HONEST BELIEF TO MAKE THE TRUTH TO EMERGE SINCE TRUTH ITSELF IS A DEFENCE OF CONTEMPT CITATION.
  
  RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
  
  GOD BLESS GHANA AND LONG LIVE GHANA !
  
  VERY TRULY YOURS,
  
  BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI
  
  INTERNATIONAL LAWYER/LEGAL CONSULTANT
  Mahama’s comments could have been avoided – Lawyer
  
  Email this
  
  Share This
  [Close]
  
  Print This
  
  Comments (30)
  
  « Prev
  Next »
  
  Mahama Worried
  
  
  
  
  General News of Thursday, 8 August 2013
  
  Source: citifmonline.com
  Mahama’s comments could have been avoided – Lawyer
  
  Email this
  
  Share This
  [Close]
  
  Print This
  
  Comments (30)
  
  « Prev
  Next »
  
  Mahama Worried
  
  A senior law lecturer at the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA), Mr Kofi Abotsi, has expressed concern about the president's pronouncements about the ongoing election petition case.
  
  In his opinion, though his (President's) comments were contemptuous, they could have been avoided.
  
  President Mahama on Wednesday gave assurances of his commitment to accept the final outcome of election petition case.
  
  According to him, "I just want to say that we have no other option than to accept the verdict. We must accept the verdict because that is the Supreme Court of Ghana and the constitution gives it the authority to adjudicate as the final arbiter on matters like this."
  
  Lawyer Abotsi in an interview with Citi news however noted that though, "the president is not an average citizen... one would have expected that everyone would exercise some restraint and therefore avoid making direct comments that may be tapped into by [bad] elements."
  
  He thus cautioned the leadership of the various parties involved in the election petition case to avoid making direct comments in relation to the case.

  reply
• ODIKRO 10 years ago

  DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD AT ALL KWASI PREMPEH? IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN CHRISTIANITY SO BE IT. STAY AS YOU ARE. IF A CHRISTIAN BELIEVES THAT WE ARE ON THIS EARTH BECAUSE OF GOD AND WHATEVER WE ENJOY IS BY HIS GRACE, WHAT IS YOUR ...
  read full comment

  DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD AT ALL KWASI PREMPEH? IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN CHRISTIANITY SO BE IT. STAY AS YOU ARE. IF A CHRISTIAN BELIEVES THAT WE ARE ON THIS EARTH BECAUSE OF GOD AND WHATEVER WE ENJOY IS BY HIS GRACE, WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM? IS IT NOT GOD'S CHILDREN WHO WROTE THIS CONSTITUTION YOU TALK OF? KWASI, DO NOT SPLIT HAIRS. YOUR ACAMEDIC ACHIEVEMENTS ARE NOT THE SAME AS THE WISDOM ESPOUSED IN YOUR OUTBURST. (THAT IS MY SINGULAR OBSERVATION AND I HOPE I AM WRONG)

  reply
• KUKRUDU 10 years ago

  YES - YOU CAN BE A PROFESSOR IN THE UNITED STATES - A VERY EASY PROCESS. COME TO EUROPE & YOU WILL SEE AND UNDERSTAND WHAT IT TAKES TO BE A PROFESSOR.
  JUST LIKE AMERICAN DEGREES - WE DON'T THROW DEGREES AT EVERT TOM, DICK & ...
  read full comment

  YES - YOU CAN BE A PROFESSOR IN THE UNITED STATES - A VERY EASY PROCESS. COME TO EUROPE & YOU WILL SEE AND UNDERSTAND WHAT IT TAKES TO BE A PROFESSOR.
  JUST LIKE AMERICAN DEGREES - WE DON'T THROW DEGREES AT EVERT TOM, DICK & HARRY AS THEY DO IN THE STATES.

  reply
• K.Poku 10 years ago

  Massa talk sense and stop this Europe and America universities comparison nonsense.

  Massa talk sense and stop this Europe and America universities comparison nonsense.

  reply
• KUKRUDU 10 years ago

  I AM SORRY BUT I AM TALKING SENSE. WHETHER YOU AGREE OR NOT, IT IS A WELL KNOWN FACT ALL OVER THE WORLD. THIS HOWEVER DOES NOT MAKE THE GOOD UNIVERSITIES LESS COMPARABLE. COME TO GERMANY,FRANCE,AUSTRIA,THE UNITED KINGDOM AND ...
  read full comment

  I AM SORRY BUT I AM TALKING SENSE. WHETHER YOU AGREE OR NOT, IT IS A WELL KNOWN FACT ALL OVER THE WORLD. THIS HOWEVER DOES NOT MAKE THE GOOD UNIVERSITIES LESS COMPARABLE. COME TO GERMANY,FRANCE,AUSTRIA,THE UNITED KINGDOM AND YOU CAN COUNT THE NUMBER OF GHANAIAN PROFESSORS ON ONE HAND. ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT GHANAIANS IN ALL THESE COUNTRIES ARE LESS CAPABLE THAN THOSE IN THE UNITED STATES? OR IS IT THAT THOSE WHO ARE PROFESSOR MATERIAL ELECT TO GO TO THE UNITED STATES? THESE PROFESSORS WILL BE CALLED LECTURERS IN EUROPE!!! GET THE BLINKERS OFF!!!!!

  reply
• K.Poku 10 years ago

  Have you sat down to think that may be these countries you mentioned are not interested in admitting these foreigners to full professorship? From what I know in America, to be become a Professor, you should have attended one ...
  read full comment

  Have you sat down to think that may be these countries you mentioned are not interested in admitting these foreigners to full professorship? From what I know in America, to be become a Professor, you should have attended one of the top universities and and written a lot of scholarly articles. Yale Law school, where Prof. Prempeh obtained his JD degree, is one of the best universities in the world. I still I think this argument is baseless. You should address the issue he has raised and stop dwelling on this.

  reply
• KUKRUDU 10 years ago

  Still you are wrong!!! We have the LSE,OXFORD, CAMBRIDGE, LONDON, SORBONNE,UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN to name but a few. Yes Yale is a top uni but the issue still remains. Any IDIOT with a little effort can be a professor in the St ...
  read full comment

  Still you are wrong!!! We have the LSE,OXFORD, CAMBRIDGE, LONDON, SORBONNE,UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN to name but a few. Yes Yale is a top uni but the issue still remains. Any IDIOT with a little effort can be a professor in the States. No you do not have to attend one of the top universities to become a professor - ARE YOU SERIOUS??? I know what I am about - you can say that to the plebs!!! A QUICK WAY TO BECOME A POROFESSOR IS TO GO TEACH IN THE USA. I can assure you, there is no discrimination when it comes to professorships. I was thought at uni by an American with a masters degree -I still wonder if she had a degree!!! That Prof Prempeh is shooting his mouth because he is a Prof. - Like all things in Ghana, you have a Doctorate degree and you are the MOST INTELLIGENT!!!! EMPTY BARRELLS!!!!!!

  reply
• Dan K 10 years ago

  Is he one of the SC judges. In my opinion he is prejudging the case already. I may be wrong but that is what my common sense tells me. Afterall aren't we all waiting for the SC to make judgement. Unless he wants to pronounce ...
  read full comment

  Is he one of the SC judges. In my opinion he is prejudging the case already. I may be wrong but that is what my common sense tells me. Afterall aren't we all waiting for the SC to make judgement. Unless he wants to pronounce his own judgement ahead of the SC one. Too known Professor.

  reply
• kojo 10 years ago

  ok i agree wt d prof but should d votes be annuled bcuz the presiding ofcer did not sign when the n(dc/pp) agents signed and their reps at the collation centers did not raise an issue?

  ok i agree wt d prof but should d votes be annuled bcuz the presiding ofcer did not sign when the n(dc/pp) agents signed and their reps at the collation centers did not raise an issue?

  reply
• Okonko Palm 10 years ago

  These are arguments about jurisprudence transposed into the political arena for political expedience.The old arguments about the values of natural law and positive law is being twisted as if the on going debate is now settled ...
  read full comment

  These are arguments about jurisprudence transposed into the political arena for political expedience.The old arguments about the values of natural law and positive law is being twisted as if the on going debate is now settled in favor of positive law.
  
  Natural law is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. On the other hand, positive law or legal positivism is a school of thought in philosophy of law and jurisprudence which posits that that there is no inherent or necessary connection between the validity conditions of law and ethics or morality.
  
  In effect natural law believes that for a law to be right it must have a moral basis based on natural law whilst the positivists or positive school of thought believes that morality must have nothing to do with law.
  
  It is this on going debate which is being played out as if the debate is now settled. If anything at all the evidence contradict the professors assertions.All the human right laws have their basis from natural law and is what has informed part of our constitution.
  
  The line drawn in this contest in simplistic terms is a battle between the right wings who are mainly positivists and the left who are mainly for natural law.For example the npp with its right wing agenda have lawyers who are mainly from the positivist school of thought and the ndc based on social justice have lawyers mainly from the natural law school of thought.So it is not surprising where this professor is coming from.
  
  There are lawyers and judges who subscribe to these legal philosophies which inform their perception on law.So this law lecturer must only be echoing his values and is wrong to make a judgment on the issue of jurisprudence on Lawyer Lithur's values and fine legal jurisprudence.

  reply
• DC insider. 10 years ago

  Kwasi Prempeh. I am happy to hear you on the news. I support your opinion. I

  Kwasi Prempeh. I am happy to hear you on the news. I support your opinion. I

  reply
• Kwesi Mends, Takoradi 10 years ago

  It's a shame a so-called law professor does not know the constitution of his own country. Please read the preamble of Ghana's constitution:
  
  THE CONSTITUTION
  
  OF THE
  
  REPUBLIC OF GHANA
  
  IN THE NAME OF THE ALMIGHTY GO ...
  read full comment

  It's a shame a so-called law professor does not know the constitution of his own country. Please read the preamble of Ghana's constitution:
  
  THE CONSTITUTION
  
  OF THE
  
  REPUBLIC OF GHANA
  
  IN THE NAME OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD
  
  We the People of Ghana,
  
  IN EXERCISE of our natural and inalienable right to establish a framework of government which shall secure for ourselves and posterity the blessings of liberty, equality of opportunity and prosperity;
  
  IN A SPIRIT of friendship and peace with all peoples of the world;
  
  AND IN SOLEMN declaration and affirmation of our commitment to;
  
  Freedom, Justice, Probity and Accountability;
  
  The Principle that all powers of Government spring from the Sovereign Will of the People;
  
  The Principle of Universal Adult Suffrage;
  
  The Rule of Law;
  
  The protection and preservation of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms, Unity and Stability for our Nation;
  
  DO HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITU

  reply
• Prof. Prempeh Is Right On the Source 10 years ago

  Professor Prempeh is correct on the point that God is not the source of our Voting Rights. However, it is worth-noting that the Voting Right is one of the most guarded of our Civil Rights by our Constitution.
  
  One can b ...
  read full comment

  Professor Prempeh is correct on the point that God is not the source of our Voting Rights. However, it is worth-noting that the Voting Right is one of the most guarded of our Civil Rights by our Constitution.
  
  One can be denied the Right to vote, under certain conditions legally dictated by the same Constitution that gave the birth to that Right.
  
  We should note also what many consider as a good litmus-test for God-given Rights, versus other Rights. That test tends to show how the denial of each Right impacts on our sheer existence. That has caused some to believe that Human Rights are more likely to be God-given than Civil Rights. For example, while denying one's Voting Right does not directly push the person to the brink of existence, denial of God-given Rights could almost always lead to that precarious edge of existential uncertainty.
  
  It is widely believed that any good Constitution would 100% guarantee people's God-given Rights (whatever the People believe those are). But such a Constitution may not necessarily guarantee Civil Rights for all.
  
  I am not a Lawyer but I believe we all must be well-versed in these differences in Rights so that we could know how best to fight for or ignore them.
  
  Maybe our Learned Legal Scholars could educate us more on this topic.
  
  Long live Ghana!!!

  reply
• Paul Amuna 10 years ago

  Constitutions, democracies, governments and elections are part of the human condition. These are human institutions which have their own inherent flaws. Even where Solomon had to adjudicate on a matter of rights, he was opera ...
  read full comment

  Constitutions, democracies, governments and elections are part of the human condition. These are human institutions which have their own inherent flaws. Even where Solomon had to adjudicate on a matter of rights, he was operating as a human being.
  
  There is no where enshrined that voting is a "God-given right". In fact, it is not. The denial of a person the "right to vote" may be unconstitutional, but is certainly nothing to do with God.
  
  Of course the denial of a person's personal freedoms and / or enslavement of a person are wicked deeds in the eyes of man (and hopefully God), but in the Old Testament, there does not appear to be any blanket condemnation of "slavery", indeed in Genesis, Exodus and Deuteronomy, there are repeated references to "slaves" and the main admonition is for them to be "treated well".
  
  Perhaps 'mass slavery' on the scale suffered by the Jews in Egypt was the first time any major recorded argument about 'mistreatment or evil' associated with slavery.
  
  One wonders if this was one of the reasons it took centuries for Europeans and Americans (and others) to allow their consciences to prick them on the WRONGS of treating one person or race better or worse than another.
  
  I want to believe there are still people today in all societies who do not see anything wrong with slavery. Wrong, wicked, pathetic, but then again, part of the human condition!!!

  reply
• Opoku 10 years ago

  You are making a mistake in the point of slavery. Kidnapping, forcing someone to work or selling is and have always been evil to God. The only condition to be a slave in the old testament is when on does not pay his creditor ...
  read full comment

  You are making a mistake in the point of slavery. Kidnapping, forcing someone to work or selling is and have always been evil to God. The only condition to be a slave in the old testament is when on does not pay his creditor and had to work to pay for it. Not the type the african kings, the arabs or the europeans were doing -kidnapping and enslaving.

  reply
• Paul Amuna 10 years ago

  perhaps you are not very familiar with the scriptures. Please take your time and read through from Genesis through to Ruth, and Judges very carefully. It might take you a few years to complete but is worthwhile.
  
  Read the ...
  read full comment

  perhaps you are not very familiar with the scriptures. Please take your time and read through from Genesis through to Ruth, and Judges very carefully. It might take you a few years to complete but is worthwhile.
  
  Read the story of the 12 tribes of Israel and you realise how slaves are described as if they are part and parcel of the family unit, and instructions are given about how they should be treated.
  
  Please be careful, some of us take time to study literature (including the scriptures) to help us understand the human condition. I hope you are not one of those who think the Bible somehow "was written by God"!!
  
  It has a lot of interesting accounts which help us to understand ourselves as human beings and if followed, should help us operate better and more equitably but some use the same tool (the bible) to justify their wickedness. Have you read the story of Ham (hewers of wood and servanthood/slavery to his brothers?).

  reply
• Opoku 10 years ago

  You can not study the bible as if you are studing literature, how then do you expect to understand God and his ways?

  You can not study the bible as if you are studing literature, how then do you expect to understand God and his ways?

  reply
• Paul Amuna 10 years ago

  It is not everyone who studies the Bible does it to "understand God and His Ways" my brother.
  
  There are two ways of studying great works such as the Bible. You can study it as part of a religious teaching and meditation, ...
  read full comment

  It is not everyone who studies the Bible does it to "understand God and His Ways" my brother.
  
  There are two ways of studying great works such as the Bible. You can study it as part of a religious teaching and meditation, or study it as an intellectual piece. I have done (and continue to do) BOTH.
  
  Dogma simply does not wash me me I'm afraid!

  reply
• Sam Bern 10 years ago

  Goway! You to come and stay in GH and see what is goings on. Nonsense .

  Goway! You to come and stay in GH and see what is goings on. Nonsense .

  reply
• YAO ELIKEM 10 years ago

  It is not God given, so anybody can take it right?

  It is not God given, so anybody can take it right?

  reply
• Opoku 10 years ago

  "God-given" can either be positive or negative. If the people in a nation are not evil in Gods' eye then anything given to them by God will do them good. But look at a nation full of evil -where parents take and sell their ow ...
  read full comment

  "God-given" can either be positive or negative. If the people in a nation are not evil in Gods' eye then anything given to them by God will do them good. But look at a nation full of evil -where parents take and sell their own childrens glory, where you will hardly find someone who is not a witch or wizard or trade in demons. Will anything given them by God do them any good?
  
  The means of electing leaders is not as important, as the means by which CAPABLE MEN can to identified!

  reply
• STRAIGHT TALK 10 years ago

  SHAME!

  SHAME!

  reply
• J.ZAGURU. 10 years ago

  WITH HELL FIRE, I KNOW MANY POLITICIANS WOULD RUN AWAY AND LEAVE BEHIND THEIR HUGE BANK ACCOUNTS, MANSIONS, JAGUARS AND 4 WHEEL DRIVES, ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH, AS SINNERS, FOR THE VOTERS TO LAUGH AT THEM.

  WITH HELL FIRE, I KNOW MANY POLITICIANS WOULD RUN AWAY AND LEAVE BEHIND THEIR HUGE BANK ACCOUNTS, MANSIONS, JAGUARS AND 4 WHEEL DRIVES, ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH, AS SINNERS, FOR THE VOTERS TO LAUGH AT THEM.

  reply
• jp brooks .u .s .a. 10 years ago

  he is right

  he is right

  reply
• Kwesi Mends, Takoradi 10 years ago

  Read Ghana's constitution:
  THE CONSTITUTION
  
  OF THE
  
  REPUBLIC OF GHANA
  
  IN THE NAME OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD
  
  We the People of Ghana,
  
  IN EXERCISE of our natural and inalienable right to establish a framework of governm ...
  read full comment

  Read Ghana's constitution:
  THE CONSTITUTION
  
  OF THE
  
  REPUBLIC OF GHANA
  
  IN THE NAME OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD
  
  We the People of Ghana,
  
  IN EXERCISE of our natural and inalienable right to establish a framework of government which shall secure for ourselves and posterity the blessings of liberty, equality of opportunity and prosperity;
  
  IN A SPIRIT of friendship and peace with all peoples of the world;
  
  AND IN SOLEMN declaration and affirmation of our commitment to;
  
  Freedom, Justice, Probity and Accountability;
  
  The Principle that all powers of Government spring from the Sovereign Will of the People;
  
  The Principle of Universal Adult Suffrage;
  
  The Rule of Law;
  
  The protection and preservation of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms, Unity and Stability for our Nation;
  
  DO HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITU

  reply
• Jato Julor (J.J.) Rawlings 10 years ago

  Have you ever read Article 42 of the 1992 constitution which says the following :
  -----------------------------------
  Right to Vote
  
  Every citizen of Ghana of eighteen years of age or above and of sound mind has the right ...
  read full comment

  Have you ever read Article 42 of the 1992 constitution which says the following :
  -----------------------------------
  Right to Vote
  
  Every citizen of Ghana of eighteen years of age or above and of sound mind has the right to vote and is entitled to be registered as a voter for the purposes of public elections and referenda.
  -------------------------------------
  
  And that means any Ghanaian without a sound mind has no God-given right to vote.
  
  2)Any Ghanaian not registered as a voter has no God-given right to vote.
  
  Enlighten yourself on the right to vote, my stepson.

  reply
• J.ZAGURU. 10 years ago

  "I HAVE MY GREATEST CONVICTION FOR THE FUTURE PROSPERITY OF GHANA IF GHANA HAS SUCH A CROP OF INTELLIGENT YOUTH", Rev. Wensley, Plaistow United Reform Church,London.

  "I HAVE MY GREATEST CONVICTION FOR THE FUTURE PROSPERITY OF GHANA IF GHANA HAS SUCH A CROP OF INTELLIGENT YOUTH", Rev. Wensley, Plaistow United Reform Church,London.

  reply
• WARD GDX - WE THE PEOPLE 10 years ago

  You read all their comments on a very fundamentally commonsensical matter that you don't need to have beyond common sense to grasp and they don't get it.
  
  The substitute their inability to reason with senseless assault an ...
  read full comment

  You read all their comments on a very fundamentally commonsensical matter that you don't need to have beyond common sense to grasp and they don't get it.
  
  The substitute their inability to reason with senseless assault and ranting.
  
  What a clueless bunch.
  
  What is so complex about RIGHT TO VOTE being a RIGHT CONFERRED BY THE CONSTITUTION relative to for instance RIGHT TO LIFE BEING GOD given right.
  
  An infant has the natural God given RIGHT to LIFE.
  
  Right to VOTE is a positive law given to that child at a stipulated AGE pursuant to the Constitutional provisions of the State granting that RIGHT TO VOTE.
  
  Go to any civilized Democracy and on a voting day, get your toddler to vote and when challenged, lay a claim that it is her/his GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO VOTE.

  reply
• Kwesi Mends, Takoradi 10 years ago

  When Americans say "voting is a God-given right" because the preamble of their constitution say so. Like the Americans, the preamble of Ghana's constitution also reads:
  
  THE CONSTITUTION
  
  OF THE
  
  REPUBLIC OF GHANA
  
  I ...
  read full comment

  When Americans say "voting is a God-given right" because the preamble of their constitution say so. Like the Americans, the preamble of Ghana's constitution also reads:
  
  THE CONSTITUTION
  
  OF THE
  
  REPUBLIC OF GHANA
  
  IN THE NAME OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD
  
  We the People of Ghana,
  
  IN EXERCISE of our natural and inalienable right to establish a framework of government which shall secure for ourselves and posterity the blessings of liberty, equality of opportunity and prosperity;
  
  IN A SPIRIT of friendship and peace with all peoples of the world;
  
  AND IN SOLEMN declaration and affirmation of our commitment to;
  
  Freedom, Justice, Probity and Accountability;
  
  The Principle that all powers of Government spring from the Sovereign Will of the People;
  
  The Principle of Universal Adult Suffrage;
  
  The Rule of Law;
  
  The protection and preservation of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms, Unity and Stability for our Nation;
  
  DO HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITU

  reply
• K.Poku 10 years ago

  Where in the US constitution preamble does it say voting is God given right?
  
  "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the commo ...
  read full comment

  Where in the US constitution preamble does it say voting is God given right?
  
  "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"

  reply
• Kwesi Mends, Takoradi 10 years ago

  Check the U.S. Declaration of Independent which preceded the constitution and also check the Preamble to Ghana's constitution. Both highlight on "GOD GIVEN RIGHTS".

  Check the U.S. Declaration of Independent which preceded the constitution and also check the Preamble to Ghana's constitution. Both highlight on "GOD GIVEN RIGHTS".

  reply
• K.Poku 10 years ago

  The U.S.declaration didn't say the right to vote was God given right. it is a lie.
  "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rig ...
  read full comment

  The U.S.declaration didn't say the right to vote was God given right. it is a lie.
  "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" where is the right to vote?

  reply
• Simple Man 10 years ago

  K. OPOKU( POKU whichever); Read this for a change.Do not be deceived by the title "Prof" anybody with a little effort in America can become a 'Prof'.Thanks
  
  Voting right “fundamental”, “inalienable” and “god-given ...
  read full comment

  K. OPOKU( POKU whichever); Read this for a change.Do not be deceived by the title "Prof" anybody with a little effort in America can become a 'Prof'.Thanks
  
  Voting right “fundamental”, “inalienable” and “god-given”: a reply to Prof. Prempeh
  
  Prof. H. Kwasi Prempeh is a man I admire so much for his keen interest in democracy, development and public affairs. On Wednesday evening, the good law Professor made an observation on Facebook. The observation was in respect of a statement attributed to Mr. Tony Lithur, the lawyer for the President in the ongoing election petition. It appears that Mr. Lithur in his address to the Supreme Court on Wednesday asserted that the right to vote in Ghana is “fundamental”, “inalienable” and “God-given." Professor Prempeh did not think that the assertion of the President’s lawyer was accurate in law or jurisprudence. To Prof. Prempeh, “the right to vote is, in Ghana as everywhere else, a right that emanates from "positive law" - in this case, the Constitution”. This observation by Prof. made it to the headline. My understanding of this statement by Prof. is that a law cannot be both “fundamental” and “positive” at the same time. In other words, a law cannot be “god-given” and “man-made” at the same time.
  
  For the first time, I have to disagree with Prof. Prempeh. I rather agree with Mr. Lithur. A right may be “god-given” and “man-made” at the same time.” I do this not oblivious of the danger or the near-recklessness involved in a beginner like myself trying to move against an established legal authority like Prof. This is how I intend to explain my position.
  I will first give a brief history of what has now become known as human right. The purpose of this rendition of history is to make the point that there is no material difference between “god-given” rights and “fundamental” right and that the two can also be “positive” or “man-made” at the same time. If I am able to show this, then, I believe there will be no force left in Prof.’s critique of Mr. Lithur. I will then conclude the note by explaining why the right to vote, which was previously only a “Constitutional,” “man-made” or “positive” right, has now acquired the additional attributes of “fundamental” or “god-given” right in Ghana. I will also show, contrary to what Prof has said, that Ghana is not alone in this business of migrating the right to vote on to the “fundamental” human rights scheme. I start.
  
  The starting point is that no entitlement can be enjoyed as of right unless it is “man-made”. The use of the term “god-given” therefore does not mean that God or god has literally dropped that right down as in the case of the Ten Commandments. I therefore will not attempt to think that Prof.’s interpretation of “god-given” is that there are some rights that have been literally handed down by God. Now what does it mean to say that a right is “god-given”? This will be found in the history of what is known today as human rights.
  
  The idea of human rights itself started long before the marriage of the Church to the State. It used to be called “natural law” or “natural right”. “Natural” because the proponents believe that there are certain things that human beings are entitled to by the mere fact of their being humans; that no person, including the sovereign, could take that entitlement away from him; that those entitlements are inalienable and inherent; and that all you have to show to be accorded those entitlements is that you are a human being. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle all spoke about these “natural” inherent entitlements.
  
  The fall of Greece and the concomitant rise of Rome did not kill this thinking. Cicero and other Roman philosophers continued to propound these ideas of “natural rights”. Also, the rise of the Church and its subsequent marriage to the State kept these ideas growing. The only change, however, was in the term used to describe these entitlements. “Natural rights” subsequently became “God-given” rights. St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine wrote extensively about this. Then the divorce of the Church and the State came, where the writings of the so-called enlightenment thinkers, the contractarians, or the libertarians, Locke, Roseau, Paine, etc changed the nomenclature of these entitlements from “God-given” right to “human rights.” That notwithstanding the concept remained the same.
  
  After the Second World War and the coming of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the war-time leaders decided to stress and concretize the point that these “human rights” were “fundamental” and could not be traded for anything. That was how come we now refer to them as “fundamental human rights”. To this extent, one cannot legitimately or seriously argue that there is a difference between “god-given” rights and “fundamental” rights. The two terms refer to the same “inherent” and “inalienable” rights, found in the American and the French declarations. One thing ran through all these changes – no one enjoyed these entitlements as of right unless they are made “positive” by a human sovereign. Thus, to be meaningful “rights” must always be elevated from “god-made” to “man-made”. Accordingly, the two “- mades” can co-exist. In fact the former “–made” means nothing unless it transforms into the latter “-made”. Having established this, I now proceed to explain why I think Mr. Lithur was not wrong with his permutation – “fundamental”, “inalienable” and “God-given”.
  
  The Drafters of our constitutions, 1979 and 1992 were informed by this new terminology of “fundamental human rights”, for which reason the Chapter V of our current Constitution is titled “The FUNDAMENTAL Human Rights and Freedoms”. “Fundamental” was used to underscore the difference between the civil and political rights in Chapter V and the Economic, Social and Cultural rights provided for under Chapter VI and titled the “Directive Principles of State Policy”. This use of “Fundamental” by the drafter of our Constitution to distinguish the civil and political rights is not new in the world. India’s 1950 Constitution uses the same language to distinguish between the two categories of rights. The European Convention also uses “Fundamental” (Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and FUNDAMENTAL Freedoms).
  
  Prof.’s disagreement is that Mr. Lithur used “fundamental” and “god-given” to qualify the right to vote; and that that description is wrong in law. He advanced to say that the right to vote is “positive” or “man-made.” Indeed, Prof would have been right before 2010 when the case of Ahumah-Ocansey v. the EC was not decided by the Supreme Court. However, since Prof. made his assertion just on Wednesday, August 7, 2013, over two years after that landmark case was decided, he could not still be right. What I am saying is that Mr. Tony Lithur (not Prof.) was very right by qualifying the right to vote as “fundamental” or “god-given.” The reason is as follows:
  
  At the tail end of Chapter V – the “FUNDAMENTAL Human Rights and Freedoms” – of the 1992 Constitution is a provision - Article 33(5). That Provision allows a rights which is not part of Chapter V (the “Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms) but which nonetheless is “considered to be inherent in a democracy and intended to secure the freedom and dignity of man” to be added to Chapter V as “Fundamental”. In other words, a right which is not already “fundamental” but which meets the criteria in Article 33(5) may be added to Chapter V by the Supreme Court and made “fundamental” or “god-give” or “inalienable” and be treated as such. That was exactly what the Supreme Court did in 2010 in the Ahumah-Ocansey case. Therefore since that day, the right to vote, which was hitherto a mere Constitutional right under Article 42, has been elevated to the level of “Fundamental Human Rights”. In effect, that right, since that day, has become part of Chapter V and is therefore “fundamental.” Really, if we were living in the day of St. Thomas Aquinas, we would have called it “God-given” or better still “natural” if we were living in the day of Plato.
  
  Prof. also implies in his critique of Mr. Lithur that the right to vote is nowhere in the world treated as a “god-given” or “fundamental” right. That too cannot be a correct statement of the reality. So, let us step onto the international plane to see if Ghana’s Supreme Court is alone in this transaction of designating the right to vote as “fundamental”.
  
  In the Canadian case of Sauvé v. the Attorney General of Canada (No. 2), the majority opinion given by McLachlin C.J. considered that the right to vote was “fundamental” to their democracy and the rule of law and could not be lightly set aside. In the South African case of August and another v. Electoral Commission & Ors., the Constitutional Court stated that “[t]he universality of the franchise is important not only for nationhood and democracy. The vote of each and every citizen is a badge of dignity and personhood. Quite literally, it says that everybody counts." It cannot be reasonable disputed that democracy itself is widely considered as a “Fundamental” human right. Finally, in Hirst v. UK the European Court of Human Rights states that “the right to vote is not a privilege. In the twenty-first century, the presumption in a democratic State must be in favour of inclusion.” The continental Court continues: “prisoners in general continue to enjoy all the FUNDAMENTAL rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention.”
  
  So it is quite clear at this stage that the right to vote, though initially a privilege within the bosom of the sovereign, who uses legislation – “positive law” – to decide to whom it should be given and when it should be given and withheld, has transformed greatly into a “fundamental” right which could not be arbitrarily limited; not even by the sovereign. The right is no more purely a “positive” law matter.
  
  Now I turn to some house-keeping matters. While reading the comments under Prof.’s Facebook post, which post became the subject of the news item, I noticed some commentators busily making their own points and drawing some analogies. Some of the analogies sought to suggest that “fundamental” mean “absolute” or “unrestrained”. So, Mr. Lithur’s pronouncement was taken to mean that voting right is absolute. In fact, one person even stated that if the right is fundamental then there was no need to register before voting and also that there could be no age-limit. They conclude that the fact that the right to vote is limited by age and procedures of voting means that they are not fundamental or inalienable as Mr. Lithur argued. I think that is very unfortunate an argument to make. The right to personal liberty is “fundamental” but is not unlimited. The right to free speech and even the right to life are all fundamental but are not unlimited. Suffice it to say that that line of reasoning is unhelpful.
  
  I end!
  
  The writer is a practising Ghanaian Lawyer in the UK.

  reply
• K.Poku 10 years ago

  Well I was on the FB with Justice Sai during this discussion and he even referenced one of my comments. Justice Sai believes fundamental right and God given right synonymous and that is where disagree.
  Below is the Prof. re ...
  read full comment

  Well I was on the FB with Justice Sai during this discussion and he even referenced one of my comments. Justice Sai believes fundamental right and God given right synonymous and that is where disagree.
  Below is the Prof. relpy to this article
  
  I have read with delight the commentary by my social media friend and interlocutor Justice Srem-Sai, which reacts to a comment I posted on my Facebook wall on Wednesday, August 7, 2013. Because Mr. Sai’s commentary unfortunately misunderstands and misrepresents my position, I have decided to offer this Reply.
  
  In my Facebook posting, I commented on a statement attributed to Mr. Tony Lithur, lawyer for the 1st Respondent in the Presidential Petition Case. In his closing submission, Mr. Lithur reportedly made the following statement: “The right to vote is fundamental; it is inalienable; it is a God-given right.” In my Facebook posting, I took exception to the last part of Mr. Lithur’s reported statement, namely his assertion that the right to vote is “God-given.”
  
  For the avoidance of doubt, here is my full Facebook comment in response to Mr. Lithur’s reported statement: “The right to vote is, in Ghana as everywhere else, a right that emanates from "positive law"--in this case, the Constitution. The right to vote is not a natural right; it does not come from any god or God. It is a man-made right, as is the form of government (democracy) with which it is associated. Being a right that emanates from positive law, its content and contours must be determined by reference to its source--the Constitution. I don't know where Mr. Lithur got this idea that the right to vote is a God-given right. God has been rather forcibly and gratuitously drafted into service in this presidential petition case. I hope He [God] doesn't make another appearance in the final judgment of the Court.”
  
  This posting generated a fair amount of civil commentary on my Facebook wall. Among the commenters was Mr. Sai, whose fresh and critical perspectives and reflections on law and legal developments in Ghana I have come to enjoy and respect. On this matter, though, I think we may have to agree to disagree civilly, although I hope that after reading this reply Mr. Sai will come to a better understanding of the source of the apparent confusion between us. The confusion may be only “apparent” because Mr. Sai’s rendering of my position, as expressed in his commentary, attributes to me a position that is quite clearly not mine.
  
  I believe the source of the apparent confusion lies, at the outset, in how Mr. Sai chose to read and interpret my original Facebook comment. His understanding of that comment amounts, unfortunately, to a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of my position.
  
  In his published commentary, Mr. Sai focuses on the first sentence in my original posting: “The right to vote is, in Ghana as everywhere else, a right that emanates from ‘positive law’—in this case, the Constitution.” He then offers this interpretation of my statement: “My understanding of this statement by Prof. is that a law cannot be both ‘fundamental’ and ‘positive’ at the same time. In other words, a law cannot be ‘god-given’ and ‘man-made’ at the same time.”
  
  First, the interpretation offered by Mr. Sai is most definitely not an interpretation that flows logically or reasonably from my statement or any part of my comment. More importantly, it is not a position I share. In my very terse comment in reaction to the statement made by Mr. Lithur, I took exception only to one aspect of Mr. Lithur’s statement, namely, his assertion that the right to vote is "God-given." I did not in any way dispute or contest his other claim that the right to vote is "fundamental".
  
  Mr. Sai’s foundational error, I believe, is in supposing that "God-given" and "fundamental" must necessarily be synonymous with one another, and therefore that, if I challenged Mr. Lithur's claim that the right to vote is "God-given," I necessarily or impliedly also challenged his claim that the right to vote is "fundamental." I did not. In my comment, I took issue only with Mr. Lithur's claim that the right to vote is "God-given". But that cannot reasonably be read to mean that I thereby disagreed with his statement that the right to vote is fundamental. Whether the term “God-given” is used as just another nickname for natural rights, I do not think “fundamental” rights and “God-given” rights are necessarily synonymous—nor, for that matter, are they necessarily in tension. Therefore, to argue, as I do, that the right to vote is not “God-given” is not to say that the right to vote is not “fundamental.”
  
  The right to vote is, of course, a fundamental right in a democracy because without it a democracy is not possible, and without it citizens are reduced to mere subjects, with no orderly and peaceful mechanism to select or change their leaders. But to go the next step to say that the right to vote is also “God-given” is, in effect, to suggest that democracy, with which the right to vote is inextricably bound, is a form of government that is ordained or preferred by nature or innate to our makeup as humans. Surely, I have no basis to go this extra step. The right to vote is a right associated with democracies, but there is nothing “natural” or innately human or “God-given” about democracy as a form of government. Democracy is one form of government among many. There are very good, legitimate, and rational reasons why human societies should want to choose or prefer democracy over other alternative or rival forms of government. Perhaps humankind is indeed set on an unstoppable linear march toward democracy, as Francis Fukuyuma optimistically argued in “The End of History and the Last Man”. It is an end I would welcome were it to materialize in my lifetime. But I do not think, and there is no way of telling, that a given society’s choice or preference for democracy is ordained by or emanates from some transcendent force of nature or is something innate or hardwired in our being as humans. And if a democratic form of government cannot be shown to be necessarily “God-given” or “natural”, then it is hard for me to see in what way the right to vote (which is democracy’s guardian right) becomes “God-given.”
  
  Lest I be misunderstood again. I am a democrat and a staunch advocate of the right to vote. My point here, which is what I stated in my original Facebook posting, is that the right to vote is simply a “positive right”, which is to say, it is a right that emanates (by choice) from human law and human society—often after a political struggle. Therefore, in order to understand the content, scope and boundaries of the right to vote in any given polity we must go to the source of that right, which in our case, is the Constitution—not to some natural or indeterminate extralegal source. The fact that the right to vote is a positive/constitutional right does not, of course, make it non-fundamental. As I have stated already, I consider the right to vote to be a fundamental right in a democracy, because without it the idea of democracy becomes hollow.
  
  Moreover, the fact that the right to vote is, in our Constitution, contained in Article 42—and not in Chapter V dealing with “Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms”—does not make it a “mere” constitutional right, or a right that was, until the Ahumah-Ocansey Case, jurisprudentially inferior to the rights enumerated in Chapter V, as Mr. Sai implies in his commentary. A right need not be found in Chapter V in order to make it fundamental. For example, the right to bring a lawsuit to challenge an act or omission of government or any person as unconstitutional is found in Article 2 of the Constitution. But just because the Article 2 right is found in Chapter 1, instead of Chapter V, does not make it any less fundamental as a right. The Constitution does not relegate a justiciable right to a “mere” right or to a “non-fundamental” or inferior status simply on account of the fact that the Framers did not place that right along with others in Chapter V of the Constitution.
  
  Mr. Sai compounds his initial error in misinterpreting my comment by also attributing to me the view that a law cannot be both “God-given” and “man-made” at the same time. Again, nothing in my terse Facebook comment compels this extraordinary conclusion or generalization. My comment, quite deliberately, limited itself only to one right: the right to vote. I did not purport in that comment to advance a general thesis or theory about the nature of law generally or whether any other law or right could or could not be both “God-given” and “man-made.” In every legal system that is respectful of rights, there is bound, or at least likely, to be some right or rights that are both “natural rights” (in the sense of deriving from our innate being or from an extralegal transcendent source) and “positive rights” (insofar as the particular legal system has recognized and granted legal force and protection to such rights). The right to vote is, however, in my view, not one of those rights that are both positive and natural. Therefore, it is again error on Mr. Sai’s part to have read my comment beyond its rather limited scope and object, which was simply to challenge the description of the right to vote as God-given.
  
  As a result of the foundational errors in Mr. Sai’s reading and interpretation of my comment, much of the rest of his commentary, unfortunately, simply compounds and extends his initial misunderstanding. In the process, he launches into an interesting exposition of the history and evolution of “human rights,” tracing the idea from its philosophical and natural law origins to the justly elevated status it enjoys in modern times. The problem with all of that fine exposition is that there is little in there with which I can disagree—except Mr. Sai’s implicit suggestion that I must be some unreconstructed legal positivist who denies or rejects the validity of natural rights or human rights as fundamental. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, in my published writings, both in the popular press (including social media) and in more scholarly forums, I have not once associated myself with a rigid “positivistic” reading of the Constitution. To the contrary, I have consistently advocated a more open-minded, liberal and progressive reading of the Constitution, one that accords with contemporary jurisprudential thought and developments in comparative and international law.
  
  In Mr. Sai’s initial comment on my Facebook wall, he stated that Mr. Lithur’s statement describing the right to vote as “God-given” was not wrong because, in his view, the Supreme Court of Ghana had stated in the prisoners’ voting rights case (the “Ahumah-Ocansey Case”) that the right to vote was “fundamental”. I queried whether the Court in the Ahumah-Ocansey Case had expressly described the right to vote as “God-given” in its judgment and went on to argue that it would be jurisprudentially inapt, and no less wrong, for the Court to say so. Mr. Sai did not directly answer that query, but continued to say that the Court had made clear that the right to vote was “fundamental.”
  
  As I have explained, the latter proposition, that the right to vote is a fundamental right, is certainly not a proposition with which I disagree. Indeed, long before the Ahumah-Ocansey Case, I had stated publicly, during the debate over voting rights for Ghanaians living abroad, that the right to vote guaranteed in the Ghanaian Constitution was sufficiently broad in its reach as to extend even to prisoners. The result in the Ahumah-Ocansey Case was, therefore, for me both right and long overdue. But my defense of prisoners’ right to vote is based squarely on the 1992 Constitution and on the fact that Ghana is a democracy; it is not based on some notion that the right to vote is “God-given.”
  
  I hope that this Reply will help to clarify the rather simple and straightforward position I stated in my Facebook posting, a position which Mr. Sai unfortunately, if sincerely, totally misunderstood and thus mischaracterized in his otherwise fine and welcome commentary. Perhaps it would be best if we could simply carry on with this important constitutional litigation without invoking or using the name of “God” in vain.

  reply
• Uncle Mends, Takoradi 10 years ago

  This February, in his fourth State of the Union address, a newly re-elected President Obama earned fierce applause when he declared: "We must all do our part to make sure our God-given rights are protected here at home. That ...
  read full comment

  This February, in his fourth State of the Union address, a newly re-elected President Obama earned fierce applause when he declared: "We must all do our part to make sure our God-given rights are protected here at home. That includes one of the most fundamental rights of a democracy: the right to vote."
  
  Remember, Obama was a constitutional law professor who also graduated from Harvard Law School.

  reply
• K.POKU 10 years ago

  Kwesi, what Obama said was a political speech which is different.

  Kwesi, what Obama said was a political speech which is different.

  reply
• Osabere kotoko 10 years ago

  Very wee put, highly articulate

  Very wee put, highly articulate

  reply
• GYATA 10 years ago

  You may be a constitutional expert in America but hardly understand what makes Black Africans and all people of Africa around the world, African Americans included, Africana, tick and their inner cultural values.
  
  For peo ...
  read full comment

  You may be a constitutional expert in America but hardly understand what makes Black Africans and all people of Africa around the world, African Americans included, Africana, tick and their inner cultural values.
  
  For people of Africana,to be born of a woman gives everyone the right to life, freedom, equality and a voice in affairs that affect his or her life. This right is not given or bestowed on a person by a constitution, a democratically elected government, a king or queen, nor a dictator, nor a cleric nor a religious body.
  
  To be born of a woman is to be human and if Black people believe in God, whatever names the various ethnic groups and African Diaspora call the omnipotent spirit, gives life carried in the womb of a woman, then God also gives the right to life, freedom, equality and the voice each vote carries. A constitution only creates a method or modalities through which the voice is heard most clearly.
  
  Your Western-education and Eurocentric mode of analysis have blinded you and you are caught in paradigm paralysis like a dog chasing its own tail.
  
  But even in America, one talks of inalienable rights, although voting is not stipulated as one of them, (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), voting seems to be the only viable method to even begin actualizing the ideal engrained in the American declaration of independence.
  
  Remember, millions were enslaved at that time in the Americas who were children of Africana, but they also knew they were born of women equally like those who enslaved and oppressed them. Haiti was born because enslaved people knew they had a god-given right to freedom, equality and justice. Just because through the centuries people could not vote does not mean is not god-given. It is because dictators, colonizers and injustice systems were impediments on freedom's path.
  
  Go back into Africana cultural life to trace where Black people stand and you will find yourself and the meaning freedom and equality and the voice our mothers and fathers gave us. WAKE UP, prof.

  reply
• Jato Julor (J.J.) Rawlings 10 years ago

  Stop the babbling and go read Article 42 of the 1992 constitution.
  
  It says thus:
  ---------------------------------
  Right to Vote
  
  Every citizen of Ghana of eighteen years of age or above and of sound mind has the right ...
  read full comment

  Stop the babbling and go read Article 42 of the 1992 constitution.
  
  It says thus:
  ---------------------------------
  Right to Vote
  
  Every citizen of Ghana of eighteen years of age or above and of sound mind has the right to vote and is entitled to be registered as a voter for the purposes of public elections and referenda.
  -------------------------------------
  
  So my stepson, if you are a Ghanaian without a sound mind, you have no God-given right to vote.
  
  Secondly, if you are a Ghanaian,but not a registered voter, you have no God-given right to vote.period.

  reply
• GYATA 10 years ago

  Modalities, idiot: bla-bla. The right comes to you by birth even if you are a naturalized Ghana because you are human:because you are born of a woman, period.
  
  Even in the African village before the European showed up an ...
  read full comment

  Modalities, idiot: bla-bla. The right comes to you by birth even if you are a naturalized Ghana because you are human:because you are born of a woman, period.
  
  Even in the African village before the European showed up and colonized, a sound mind is all you need to speak at meetings, thus giving you voice on affairs that affect you. That is the vote that at national level through the constitution with modalities and methods upholds. The dog is still chasing its tail.
  
  Eurocentric moronic position of objectivity also has cultural underpinnings, just as colonialism has no inkling of democratic processes Africans practiced before despots came, first as colonialists. Voting rights are god-given as mothers who gave us birth.

  reply
• Whatever 10 years ago

  The trajectory with which NPP is going is very dangerous to the extent that they are even questioning people's right to choose its leaders. The heart of democracy

  The trajectory with which NPP is going is very dangerous to the extent that they are even questioning people's right to choose its leaders. The heart of democracy

  reply
• Amah. 10 years ago

  I know that you are an Npp lawyer, but you understand that election took place on 26002 polling stations not 24000 as you people are claiming. if the judges are to rule it most be 26002 polling stations ok.And you can not imp ...
  read full comment

  I know that you are an Npp lawyer, but you understand that election took place on 26002 polling stations not 24000 as you people are claiming. if the judges are to rule it most be 26002 polling stations ok.And you can not impose a leader to people but people choose their leader which they have done honourably and your bad faith can not stop it.

  reply
• appisco ,sunyani 10 years ago

  i learned addison is a good cross examiner but terrible in giving address at court.even yaw asamoah could have save the peittioners.
  oh pity npp.

  i learned addison is a good cross examiner but terrible in giving address at court.even yaw asamoah could have save the peittioners.
  oh pity npp.

  reply
• Sankofa 10 years ago

  Prof Prempeh think again.
  
  The right to vote is enshrined in the constitution. is the constitution not the fundamental law of the land? Is the right to vote therefore not a fundamental, inalienable right of a Ghanaian as pr ...
  read full comment

  Prof Prempeh think again.
  
  The right to vote is enshrined in the constitution. is the constitution not the fundamental law of the land? Is the right to vote therefore not a fundamental, inalienable right of a Ghanaian as prescribed by the constitution?
  
  We expect a learned professor to exhibit common sense at the very least.

  reply
• DR. WHO? 10 years ago

  Whether it is God-made or man-made, the constitution of Ghana gives Ghanaians who are of the right age and of sound mind to vote. So therefore their vote must count. No one can annul those votes.
  
  Inconsequential, unnecess ...
  read full comment

  Whether it is God-made or man-made, the constitution of Ghana gives Ghanaians who are of the right age and of sound mind to vote. So therefore their vote must count. No one can annul those votes.
  
  Inconsequential, unnecessary and uncalled for, is how I will describe this attention-seeking Dr. Who.

  reply
• kaketonti 10 years ago

  Don't belittle yourself Mr Law Prof.Not sure if Nana made you taste the stuff.Say this to Nana.

  Don't belittle yourself Mr Law Prof.Not sure if Nana made you taste the stuff.Say this to Nana.

  reply
• the bones 10 years ago

  Anything a man has the right to is of God. even if it is the constitution that has given the mandate to people to vote, you must understand that all things are of God. stop being too sure of knowing and talk right. these so c ...
  read full comment

  Anything a man has the right to is of God. even if it is the constitution that has given the mandate to people to vote, you must understand that all things are of God. stop being too sure of knowing and talk right. these so called lawyers and their laws think they are super powers. look there is the supreme God who will subject all things to divine accountability, so you people must be careful ok.

  reply