Inside the court battle that forced retained ministers to seek fresh approval from Parliament

The vetting of ministerial nominees by Parliament’s Appointments Committee is an important part of the constitutional process for approving presidential appointments, but the committee’s recommendation is not the final decision.

The distinction between vetting and approval became central in the Supreme Court case of Mensah versus Attorney General in 1997 according to a social media post by Legal Academy October 21, 2926.

The case examined whether Ministers and Deputy Minister retained in office after a new Parliament began needed fresh parliamentary approval.

The case followed a decision by Parliament on February 14, 1997, which adopted a resolution that was previously approved by Parliament would not require fresh approval if retained by the President.

The decision followed a meeting of Parliament’s Appointments Committee on February 13, 1997.

LIVESTREAMED: Parliament resumes sitting to deliberate on key national issues

It affected the then Finance Minister, Kwame Peprah, and six other nominees who had previously received parliamentary approval.

However, the then Minority Leader at the time, Joseph Henry Mensah, challenged the resolution at the Supreme Court, arguing that the Constitution required each Parliament to exercise its own independent judgment on ministerial appointments.

Mensah’s legal team, which included former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo and the late Anthony Akoto Ampaw argued that a previous Parliament’s approval could not replace the approval required from a subsequent Parliament.

The state, represented by then Attorney General Obed Asamoah and his Deputy, Martin Amidu, maintained that Ministers retained in office did not necessarily need to undergo the approval process again.

What the Supreme Court said

The Supreme Court examined the meaning of “prior approval of Parliament” under the 1992 Constitution and distinguished between the requirement for approval and the procedure Parliament could use to grant it.

The court held that a Minister or Deputy Minister must obtain parliamentary approval before taking office, and that an appointment made without the constitutionally required prior approval could be declared unconstitutional.

The ruling also clarified that the Constitution did not prescribe a specific procedure through which Parliament had to grant approval.

This meant Parliament retained the authority to determine how it would scrutinise and approve nominees. However, that procedural freedom did not allow it to dispense with approval where the Constitution expressly required it.

See the post below:

JKB/VPO

Guns and Drugs: Dr Adam Bonaa Warns of Growing Security Threat to Ghana