No show at Gitmo 2 ruling

The Supreme Court of Ghana has failed for the second time to deliver its judgment in the Gitmo 2 case as the judges admit that after holding a judgment conference, they are still unable to reach a decision.

The seven-member Supreme Court panel presided over by Justice William Atuguba has, however, requested the parties to file further submissions on the effect Articles 83 and 84 of the 1992 Constitution has on Article 75 of the same Constitution.

Article 75 of the 1992 constitution states: (1) The President may execute or cause to be executed treaties, agreements or conventions in the name of Ghana.

(2) A treaty, agreement or convention executed by or under the authority of the President shall be subject to ratification by-

(a) Act of Parliament; or

(b) a resolution of Parliament supported by the votes of more than on-half of all the members of Parliament.

Article 83 and 84 which bothers on National Security Council also says

84. The functions of the National Security Council include

) considering and taking appropriate measures to safeguard the internal and external security of Ghana;

(b) ensuring the collection of information relating to the security of Ghana and the integration of the domestic, foreign and security policies relating to it so as to enable the security services and other departments and agencies of the Government to co-operate more effectively in matters relating to national security;

(c) assessing and appraising the objectives, commitments and risks of Ghana in relation to the actual and potential military power in the interest of national security; and

(d) taking appropriate measures regarding the consideration of policies on matters of common interest to the departments and agencies of the Government concerned with national security.

The difficulty of the Supreme Court is that they want to be sure if decisions taken in respect of national security interest to enter into agreements with another country can be overturned by the court on grounds that it conflicts with a constitutional provision. They further explain that as it stands now, the said agreement has already been executed and they are wondering if anything at all can change about it per the judgment of the court.

The court has asked the parties to file further submissions by the 24th of May 2017 and return to court on the 22nd of June 2017 for the judgment of the court.