I haven't bothered myself to read the judgements from the 9 justices even though I have copies in my inbox. But when I saw that headline, I really agreed with it even though I didn't bother to read the full article either. I ... read full comment
I haven't bothered myself to read the judgements from the 9 justices even though I have copies in my inbox. But when I saw that headline, I really agreed with it even though I didn't bother to read the full article either. I am not wasting my time much on reading a lot about this circus, a real frivolous case to begin with.
You see, the law is simply an ancillary service to politics or good governance just as accounting is to say running a business. Politics therefore trumps the law at the ultimate, or at the end. So in an end game like we had just witnessed, the principles and spirit of politics that undergird the Const. must take precedence over other considerations, esp, when those considerations are even unconst'nal like the requirement for barometric verification passed by Parliament, or claims that signatures not appended to results by incompetent presiding officers meant that votes must be nullified in only some specific areas where the petitioners lost heavily!
Below is a piece of a response I gave to Dr SAS way back in Jan.
I've examined the principle thus referred to by you and found it in support of my stance.
For the sake of other readers, I've quoted a bit of what's out there.
"The rule is generalia specialibus non derogant. The general principle to be applied ... to the construction of acts of Parliament is that a general act is not to be construed to repeal a previous particular act, unless there is some express reference to the previous legislation on the subject, or unless there is a necessary inconsistency in the two acts standing together. And the reason is ... that the legislature having had its attention directed to a special subject, and having observed all the circumstances of the case and provided for them, does not intend by a general enactment afterwards to derogate from its own act when it makes no special mention of its intention so to do...."
Unquote.
In simple English, Parliament cannot even be allowed to pass another law which contradicts or, in practice, repeals a previous special act, unless reference was explicitly made to that special act that it was being amended in such and such manner.
Now, we've an act of Parliament which attempts to amend or contradict with the Const., a far superior body of laws, without specifically referring to the Const'nal clause/s to be so amended, and you are suggesting that the MPs that botched up with the CI 78 might've thought or got in their minds the immunity Article when botching up, and so we should accept that the Const. was amended by a simple majority of incompetent MPs?!
I am sorry, this argument falls flat on its face. Not worth further consideration.
----------------
The above argument doesn't only refer to the illegal waiving of the President's immunity but some small group of MPs but also the barometric verification CI too.
In conclusion, Justice Adinyira's position is a rejection of the Cartesian, mechanistic logic that I observed in the thinking of some of the justices who granted some of the reliefs. They should go and re-read K.C. Wheare's classic "Constitutions".
Andy-K
KING 10 years ago
THIS IS SIMPLY A STUPID PIECE,BCS IF A LAW CAN BE IMMATERIAL THEN WHY THE LAW?
THIS IS SIMPLY A STUPID PIECE,BCS IF A LAW CAN BE IMMATERIAL THEN WHY THE LAW?
C.Y. ANDY-K 10 years ago
You need to think again. Not me who obviously understand this conundrum better than you. The law is immaterial against the universal principles that undergird the polity, often captured in the Constitution. Even in the Const. ... read full comment
You need to think again. Not me who obviously understand this conundrum better than you. The law is immaterial against the universal principles that undergird the polity, often captured in the Constitution. Even in the Const., not all things are expressed sufficiently in clauses, so they are captured in the "spirit" of the Const. as found in the Preamble and Notes attached to the Constitution.
BTW, my previous quote was not in response to Dr. SAS, I found out. It was rather written in a private forum in response to a key NDC lawyer advocating that Pres. Mahama open a defence instead of plead immunity.
Further to that, I also wrote this in support of my positions.
"Since writing this, it has become clearer to me that the CI 78 upon which the NPP based its action in joining the President to the suit is the heavily flawed and trouble legislation, same legislative instrument which set up the extra 45 constituencies recently, which the NPP boycotted. I was under the impression action was based on an actual const'nal contradiction unearthed by the NPP, thus my analysis is an intra-const'nal or internal one. "Criterion analysis," I think the book-long people call it. If indeed it is a contradiction between a provision of the Constitution and a legislative instrument of Parliament, then I am lost for words why any lawyer worth his/her salt and/or knows his/her onions well, can argue that such a legislation takes precedence over a const'nal provision. I wouldn't have wasted my time at all on such a "foolish case".
Of course, I am well versed in K.C. Wheare's classic, "Constitutions", from the Pol. Science reading list, and know that one way consts. change is through judicial interpretation [of ambiguous or vague clauses or new meanings for terms, concepts, etc]. So for instance, once Blacks in the US were also recognised as "men", no longer chattel to be sold and owned, they become covered by the phrase "all men are created equal...." My argument is thus based on that principle and in recognition of a world wide convention or law, even if am ambiguity exists in the Const., which is not the case. "
It is by such judicial re-interpretations due to changing circumstances, attitudes and understanding in the society that has enabled the American Const. to stand the test of time, without major amendments to many of its clauses. Or, a new one re-written at all.
The lawyers and those writing on this case have failed to bring out and elucidate on these key principles of state formation and governance. It is only now that retired Justice Crabbe has drawn attention to the flawed CI 78.
Andy-K
Kojo T 10 years ago
The law is a means to an end , not the end itself. I have sent in a psot on the elction based on a laymans view. I hope it gets published as it clarifies some issues. Some of you feel hurt because you lost but really the judg ... read full comment
The law is a means to an end , not the end itself. I have sent in a psot on the elction based on a laymans view. I hope it gets published as it clarifies some issues. Some of you feel hurt because you lost but really the judges made sure Ghana won. The biometric law was a statitory law that was in conflict with the constitution. It was therefore rendered void
KOO 10 years ago
The reasons given by Justice Adinyira for her ruling is just baffling.It is unbelievable that a judge who is suppose to defend the law and interpret it will just turn around and tell Ghanaians that the same law is immaterial. ... read full comment
The reasons given by Justice Adinyira for her ruling is just baffling.It is unbelievable that a judge who is suppose to defend the law and interpret it will just turn around and tell Ghanaians that the same law is immaterial.It is quite obvious that her ruling was politically motivated.
Apatupr3 10 years ago
Soothsayer? Her Ladyship clearly saw through this bogus election petition,and rightly described its prime movers and their supporters, the best way she could!
Who(persons as well as institutions) have these insolent and dia ... read full comment
Soothsayer? Her Ladyship clearly saw through this bogus election petition,and rightly described its prime movers and their supporters, the best way she could!
Who(persons as well as institutions) have these insolent and diabolical individuals, bent on turning this country upside in pursuit of their parochial and selfish interests, not sought to tain and malign? The latest target for attack is the Otumfour Osei Tutu II,who is now being accused of serving as a conduit for bribing certain SC Justices to alter the verdict to favour Pres. John Mahama.
But does this come as a surprise when so-called men of letters abandon commonsense and decency,and write all manner of articles deliberately skewed to ruin people`s hard-won reputations. And these same individuals parade themselves as adherents of democracy and the rule of law!
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 10 years ago
Mr Darko, I believe you could have done better by reading SCJ Adinyira's written grounds rather than rely on just a paragraph of over 70-page judgement. I did not get the impression from the article that you have taken the ti ... read full comment
Mr Darko, I believe you could have done better by reading SCJ Adinyira's written grounds rather than rely on just a paragraph of over 70-page judgement. I did not get the impression from the article that you have taken the time to read her judgement. I have read her written reasons and do not consider what you are quoting meant law is immaterial. After all she relied on statutes to reach her decisions on the various claims, except that she did not restrict herself to the letter of the law alone but also considered the spirit of the law. That is what she meant by the law being immaterial.
OTCHERE DARKO 10 years ago
Kofi,
I never said in my article that I never read the full judgement of Justice Adinyira. That I wrote my article based on the Daily Guide report does not mean you should draw the conclusion you have drawn. After I said " ... read full comment
Kofi,
I never said in my article that I never read the full judgement of Justice Adinyira. That I wrote my article based on the Daily Guide report does not mean you should draw the conclusion you have drawn. After I said "seemingly wrong".
I DID NOT SAY IT IS/WAS WRONG.
In fact, I posed the question to form my heading because my article was based on Daily Guide's news report. Despite that, I did NOT critisize the statement of Justice Adinyira on the issue of, and as far as her "Law is immaterial" is/was concerned.
The context of my article was on another issue...... the issue of whether judges should take into consideration the reprehensible BEHAVIOUR OF POLITICIANS when they are considering election petitions OR they (the judges) should limit themselves on the relevant EVIDENCE put before them by petitioners concerning the petition?
It seems that it is WRONG for Justice Adinyira to use her written judgement on the election petition to express her views on the "irresponsible" behaviour of [some political] people. By mentioning the behavioural actions of such "irresponsible" politicians, Justice Adinyira SEEMS to be telling us (Ghanaians) that such bad behaviour of [some] politicians featured in her mind when she was deciding the case.
THIS is what I sought in my article to highlight. I chose the heading I used BECAUSE if [some or all members] of the Supreme Court allow their anger about the bad behaviour of "irresponsible" politicians to show in a case on election petition, then they are breaching basic judicial maxim that judges and jurors must always limit their consideration to issues before them and pass judgment WITHOUT bending their heads towards issues outside the case they are deliberating on. That error is what may have forced the Daily Guide to make the statement ("law is immaterial"] and allege that it was made by the learned judge.
John Anamse 10 years ago
Why should a judge not make reference to irresponsible political behaviour if it impinges on the matter before the justices.
How many times did we not have major opinion leaders advising the country to just accept any outc ... read full comment
Why should a judge not make reference to irresponsible political behaviour if it impinges on the matter before the justices.
How many times did we not have major opinion leaders advising the country to just accept any outcome of the justices on grounds of political expediency.
Just imagine the manner most Ghanaians thought Ghana was going to be erased from the world after the election petition no matter who won the elections. And so why should that unnecessary tension created by the Politicians who sent this case to court not be commented on.
Now those politicians want to be rewarded with a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. Hhhhhmmmmm, get a price for formenting trouble when non existed and asking for a reward. In that case, I could also win a NOBEL next year.
spanky 10 years ago
This is the product of the lazy thinking that Kwame Impamin has been talking about and in any case how do you expect some who was smuggled through the law school to understand and appreciate reason behind SCJ Adinyira's judge ... read full comment
This is the product of the lazy thinking that Kwame Impamin has been talking about and in any case how do you expect some who was smuggled through the law school to understand and appreciate reason behind SCJ Adinyira's judgement.
Kwame Asante, Ny 10 years ago
Why do you waste precious time on hand to respond to Kofi Ata(Attah)? The guy is simply stupid and does not even know how to spell his name correct. He does not know law but writes and pretends as if he has legal acumen. It i ... read full comment
Why do you waste precious time on hand to respond to Kofi Ata(Attah)? The guy is simply stupid and does not even know how to spell his name correct. He does not know law but writes and pretends as if he has legal acumen. It is people like Kofi Ata whose behavior is a drawback to the progress of Ghana. They are illogical and myopic.
I haven't bothered myself to read the judgements from the 9 justices even though I have copies in my inbox. But when I saw that headline, I really agreed with it even though I didn't bother to read the full article either. I ...
read full comment
THIS IS SIMPLY A STUPID PIECE,BCS IF A LAW CAN BE IMMATERIAL THEN WHY THE LAW?
You need to think again. Not me who obviously understand this conundrum better than you. The law is immaterial against the universal principles that undergird the polity, often captured in the Constitution. Even in the Const. ...
read full comment
The law is a means to an end , not the end itself. I have sent in a psot on the elction based on a laymans view. I hope it gets published as it clarifies some issues. Some of you feel hurt because you lost but really the judg ...
read full comment
The reasons given by Justice Adinyira for her ruling is just baffling.It is unbelievable that a judge who is suppose to defend the law and interpret it will just turn around and tell Ghanaians that the same law is immaterial. ...
read full comment
Soothsayer? Her Ladyship clearly saw through this bogus election petition,and rightly described its prime movers and their supporters, the best way she could!
Who(persons as well as institutions) have these insolent and dia ...
read full comment
Mr Darko, I believe you could have done better by reading SCJ Adinyira's written grounds rather than rely on just a paragraph of over 70-page judgement. I did not get the impression from the article that you have taken the ti ...
read full comment
Kofi,
I never said in my article that I never read the full judgement of Justice Adinyira. That I wrote my article based on the Daily Guide report does not mean you should draw the conclusion you have drawn. After I said " ...
read full comment
Why should a judge not make reference to irresponsible political behaviour if it impinges on the matter before the justices.
How many times did we not have major opinion leaders advising the country to just accept any outc ...
read full comment
This is the product of the lazy thinking that Kwame Impamin has been talking about and in any case how do you expect some who was smuggled through the law school to understand and appreciate reason behind SCJ Adinyira's judge ...
read full comment
Why do you waste precious time on hand to respond to Kofi Ata(Attah)? The guy is simply stupid and does not even know how to spell his name correct. He does not know law but writes and pretends as if he has legal acumen. It i ...
read full comment