To Her Ladyship

Read Comments Comments (13)

• moyo 9 years ago

  Ghanaians are waiting for Chief Justice to tell the country why she failed to perform her duties on the dates stipulated.

  Ghanaians are waiting for Chief Justice to tell the country why she failed to perform her duties on the dates stipulated.

  reply
• Okonko palm 9 years ago

  The Asare ruling made it clear that when the president and the vice are not in the country,the speaker must take the presidential oath and act on their behalf as the constitution stipulated because in their opinion they not a ...
  read full comment

  The Asare ruling made it clear that when the president and the vice are not in the country,the speaker must take the presidential oath and act on their behalf as the constitution stipulated because in their opinion they not available for duty in the country and therefore the office is vacant.
  
  But as we know the president and the vice were on official duty and therefore were still exercising their presidential duties.To say that they are incapacitated as a result of travelling on official duty is too creative for a ruling.
  
  In Asare v Attorney General [2003-4] SCGLR 823, the Supreme Court held that “the purposive interpretation to be given to Article 60(11) is that where both the President and the Vice-President are absent from Ghana, they are to be regarded as unable to perform the functions of the President and thus the Speaker is obliged to perform those functions.”
  
  However the ruling fell short of what happens in a sequence like this since they did not stipulate that that power of attorney implied by the swearing in the speaker should be repeated any time the office becomes vacant.I think the interpretation by the SC fell short and for what ever reason they have muddled the waters.
  
  The best approach is to ask the SC to clarify and explain the confusion arising as a result of their ruling.It is obvious that there is something wrong and I personally disagree with the ruling of the sc on the interpretation they gave for the president and vicw's absence from the country on official duties.However we must be clear as to its consequences no matter how bizarre that ruling.

  reply
• CORNEY 9 years ago

  If they are regarded as not performing their duties because they are outside the country and a new president sworn into office then anytime they return they cannot be considered president and vice up until the new president h ...
  read full comment

  If they are regarded as not performing their duties because they are outside the country and a new president sworn into office then anytime they return they cannot be considered president and vice up until the new president hands over to them and they are sworn into office again.
  Let us just scrap that bogus clause in the constitution and just keep the Speaker as the number three man and the leader anytime both the president and vice are out of the country or unable to perform their duties.
  We always follow people blindly and do things wrongly,the US has the same thing but they don't say anytime both the president and vice are out of the country the Speaker be sworn in as the acting president,this Asare guy should be the last person writing this nonsense,similar thing he did during the last Supreme Court Election Petition hearing.
  Let us see him talking about constitutional issues in the US where he claims he is a constitutional Lawyer,we don't hear about him anywhere in the US.

  reply
• Paa Kow 9 years ago

  "We don't hear about him anywhere in the US". You and who don't hear of him? Foolish man cry- okwasea suuh.

  "We don't hear about him anywhere in the US". You and who don't hear of him? Foolish man cry- okwasea suuh.

  reply
• Nyansasem 9 years ago

  "Let us just scrap that bogus clause in the constitution and just keep the Speaker as the number three man and the leader anytime both the president and vice are out of the country or unable to perform their duties."
  
  ***** ...
  read full comment

  "Let us just scrap that bogus clause in the constitution and just keep the Speaker as the number three man and the leader anytime both the president and vice are out of the country or unable to perform their duties."
  
  ******
  
  
  What an idiot and buffoon. Learn to understand issues at hand before engaging your pea-brain. Basically, you are saying the same thing Azar has been saying since 2002. You guys see everything through the prism of your tribal and political but not that gentle man. He sued the the government and wanted that clause to be removed in 2002 but the same idiots at Supreme Court ruled against him and said he was wrong. If he was wrong and they are right, why are they not adhering to what the constitution dictates?
  
  Kwasia, he did well challenging your stupid hero, Atuguba who sat there smiling when a stinky and filthy lawyer like Tsatsu was disgracing Ghanaians everywhere by insulting his peers on National TV. Do you think any lawyer could do that in front of US Supreme Court? And you wanted not one to challenge the same stupid Atuguba who tried to cow the whole Nation into silence. Note, the same idiot Atuguba and his peers were the ones who ruled against Azar in 2002 and said, there is nothing wrong with the constitution and the speaker should be sworn-in anytime the PRez and his Veep are out of the country.
  
  www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=22095
  
  Ala Adjetey's acting presidency challenged
  
  
  Prof. Stephen Kwaku Asare, a Ghanaian citizen has filed an action at the Supreme Court challenging the appointment of Speaker of Parliament, Peter Ala Adjetey, as acting president.
  
  According to Professor Asare, the purported swearing-in of Mr Ala Adjetey as acting President of Ghana on Monday, February 25, was inconsistent with or is in contravention of the 1992 Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional.
  
  The appointment of Mr Ala Adjetey is therefore void and of no effect, he contended. The plaintiff is therefore seeking a perpetual injunction to restrain Mr Ala Adjetey and any other person, succeeding to the office of Speaker Parliament from performing the functions of President of the Republic of Ghana, except in the event of the President and the Vice President being unable to perform the function of the President.
  
  The action was filed by the plaintiff’s counsel, Dr. P.E. Bondzi-Simpson. Professor Asare in his application said, on January 7, 2001 His Excellency, Mr John Agyekum Kufuor, was sworn-in as the President of Ghana, by the then Chief Justice, His Lordship Kobina Abban, pursuant to Article 53 (3) of the 1992 constitution.
  
  On Monday, February 25, 2002, it was reported extensively in the print and electronic media that the President was about to travel to Singapore and then to Australia to perform various duties in his capacity as Head of State and Head of Government.
  
  In Singapore, President Kufuor was to meet the President and also the prime Minister of Singapore, and in Australia he was to attend a Conference of Commonwealth Heads of State and Governments.
  
  According to the plaintiff, the same media that reported the President’s impending travels also reported that in the light of the Vice President’s absence from Ghana, due to his earlier travel on a Hajj to Mecca in Saudi Arabia, the Speaker Mr Ala Adjetey was to be sworn in to perform the duties of President.
  
  The Speaker, he noted was in fact purportedly sworn-in to perform the functions of President in a ceremony that took place in Parliament house, Accra, spanning the late hours of Sunday, February 25, 2002.
  
  The plaintiff argued that the effect of the swearing-in of the Speaker to perform the functions of President is that, if not declared unconstitutional, void and of no effect, there would be two Presidents for the Republic of Ghana.
  
  According to him, “a situation of dual Presidency creates, and is a recipe to creating untold chaos and confusion”. He said during the Presidency of Flt Lt Jerry John Rawlings between 1993 and 2001, on two occasions, a similar situation occurred when the then Speaker, Mr Justice D.F. Annan was sworn-in to perform the duties of President.
  
  The appointment of the Speakers by both the previous government and the present government, he said, were in all likelihood and most probably done innocently under the mistaken appreciation and misapprehension of the law.
  
  According to the plaintiff, the facts aforementioned and the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Mr Ala Adjetey to perform the duties of President, are so notorious and well known that the honourable and august Supreme Court might take judicial notice of them.
  
  He said Article 60 of the Constitution is silent on the situation where both the President and the Vice President are absent from Ghana at the same time. The plaintiff argued that the silence of the Constitution on the situation where the President and Vice President are absent form Ghana at the same time is nevertheless no reason to act unconstitutionally, even if the unconstitutional act was performed innocently.
  
  When GRi contacted the Plaintiff in London, he said "it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that the provisions of the constitution are adhered to at all times".

  reply
• Mark (UK) 9 years ago

  I thought the ruling is clear enough. If both president and his vice are out of the country then the Speaker be sworn in to perform the duties of the president. I don't think that instances where both travel out of the countr ...
  read full comment

  I thought the ruling is clear enough. If both president and his vice are out of the country then the Speaker be sworn in to perform the duties of the president. I don't think that instances where both travel out of the country is a regular occurrence. There is no need for the SC to clarify this issue further, to my mind.

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 9 years ago

  Mark, Okonko palm is right that the problem has been caused partly by the SC ruling on Asare v Attorney General. It was wrong for the SC to interpret incapacitated to include absence from the country. With improved IT in Ghan ...
  read full comment

  Mark, Okonko palm is right that the problem has been caused partly by the SC ruling on Asare v Attorney General. It was wrong for the SC to interpret incapacitated to include absence from the country. With improved IT in Ghana and globally, the President is capable of carrying the functions of the president from abroad.
  
  Article 60(11)(12) were meant to be for emergency and national crisis when both the President and Vice are incapacitated (seriously ill including undergoing surgical operation under general anesthetic, involved in serious accidents at the same and therefore both were unable to perform the functions of the president) so that the Speaker acts in the interim) It was meant to be on rare occasions and the exception rather than the norm as it is now.
  
  The question is whether the oath the Speaker took on September 13, 2013 is in abeyance that could be activated any time the President and Vice were out of the country as the Speaker claims. I do not think so if Article 60(11)(12) and the SC ruling on Asare v Attorney General are read together.
  
  The SC must interpret the Constitution as a living document, otherwise, these conflicts will occur from time to time. Had the SC agreed with Prof Asare in the 2003/4 challenge, this problem would not have arisen. I agree with Okonko palm that the SC must clarify Article 60(11)(12).

  reply
• Gabaa 9 years ago

  Misinterpretation of the constitution. You take that oath once and you do it when the president is out. Think about the unnecessary time it will take any time those two are out of the country. That article in the constitutio ...
  read full comment

  Misinterpretation of the constitution. You take that oath once and you do it when the president is out. Think about the unnecessary time it will take any time those two are out of the country. That article in the constitution is outmoded, the President can still give directive if he is out of the country via technology

  reply
• STONER KOBYLYNTON 9 years ago

  Dr. Asare, getting back to the first line in Article 60(11) which says that "Where the President and the Vice-President are both unable to perform the functions of the President, the Speaker of Parliament shall perform those ...
  read full comment

  Dr. Asare, getting back to the first line in Article 60(11) which says that "Where the President and the Vice-President are both unable to perform the functions of the President, the Speaker of Parliament shall perform those functions until the President or the Vice-President is able to perform those functions or a new President assumes office, as the case may be." The statement - "are both unable to perform the functions of the President" is totally ambiguous. Common sense explicitly tells that both the President and his Vice are on government business outside the country which indicates that they are still performing their official duties elsewhere. At any particular time that both gentlemen are out of the country and contract any business with another government or any entity, such contract is binding to the nation because the President was acting in the capacity as president of the republic.
  
  I think the only time the Speaker should be sworn in is when both gentlemen are completely incapacitated or dead. This democratic government is an imported institution which we must do same as the owners are doing and working good for them. The Speaker is to step in without swearing-in at anytime as acting or interim President when both gentlemen are out on government business outside the country.
  
  The Supreme's Court ruling in the case (Asare v Attorney General [2003-4] SCGLR 823)is wrong and should be revisited again. Many a times Judges err and do go back to write new opinions. No big deal about that. They are not superhumans. E&OE.

  reply
• SBK 9 years ago

  Until the SC 'mistake' in the Asare V Attorney general is corrected it is precedent and therefore the law of the land for now. It must be upheld and the Speaker agrees to be sworn in or impeached.If we are allowed to disobey ...
  read full comment

  Until the SC 'mistake' in the Asare V Attorney general is corrected it is precedent and therefore the law of the land for now. It must be upheld and the Speaker agrees to be sworn in or impeached.If we are allowed to disobey a standing law because we disagree with it Ghana's lawlessness can consume you.

  reply
• CORNEY 9 years ago

  Ghana's constitution should be called CONFUSION,
  This debate is just sickening.

  Ghana's constitution should be called CONFUSION,
  This debate is just sickening.

  reply
• KBK 9 years ago

  What is the legal procedure in this case? I need an explanation, not being, myself, a man of the law...
  
  1. Does the JC have to write a personal letter of explanation in response to Asare or make that letter an "open" answe ...
  read full comment

  What is the legal procedure in this case? I need an explanation, not being, myself, a man of the law...
  
  1. Does the JC have to write a personal letter of explanation in response to Asare or make that letter an "open" answer?
  
  2. Does she need to hold a press conference to explain her act (or inaction)?
  
  3. She attends many public functions and surely gives public lectures. Can she do the explanation (surreptitiously) on any one such occasion?
  
  4. Will it need another court action to explain the situation?
  
  I think an explanation is necessary but I don't think Asare is right in saying the nation is "confused". It is the legal community that is confused about the issue. I don't think even the Speaker is confused. The lay man in the street couldn't care less...

  reply
• GHANABA 9 years ago

  Majority of the "framers" of the constitution are still alive,so why don"t we call them to come and sort things out in parliament.In 50 years people are going to call this "copy and paste codified crap" sacred.

  Majority of the "framers" of the constitution are still alive,so why don"t we call them to come and sort things out in parliament.In 50 years people are going to call this "copy and paste codified crap" sacred.

  reply