Embrace the Supreme Court Ruling

*By William Dowokpor*

*Introduction:*

On Thursday, August 29, 2013, the one and only Supreme Court of the

Republic of Ghana will deliver judgment on the December 2012 presidential

election petition it has been hearing for months.

While is difficult to attempt to quantify the cost and lost opportunities

of the process to the nation as a whole, it is generally accepted as a

necessary evil that should settle once and for all, who actually won the

December 2012 presidential elections and what kind of electoral system we

should deploy for future elections to avoid such disputes.

*Constitutionalism:*

Ordinarily, in a multi-party democracy such as Ghana, the anticipated

judgment and its consequences should not create anxieties for anyone except

the parties involved in the dispute. More so when the hearing in its

entirety, has gone through the due process of law, leaving no one in doubt

about the existence and operation of constitutionalism in Ghana.

That, the 1992 constitution makes provision for the declaration of

presidential results by the electoral commission to be challenged at the

Supreme Court and the petitioners have exercised their right to do so,

without let or hindrance, should assure everyone interested in the welfare

of Ghana that, the process can only end well even if the losing party is

not happy with the outcome. Again, should the losing party decide to

exercise the right to seek a review, it should be seen as an opportunity to

reaffirm or clarify the ruling in law, since there is no room for new

evidence to be heard; and all litigation must have closure.

*Calls for Peace:*

Since the Court confirmed the day it intends to deliver judgment, scenarios

of hope and gloom have been put forth from several segments of society. But

the typical Ghanaian response has been calls for Peace! Peace! Peace!

Indeed, Ghana has carved a niche for itself as a most peaceful nation state

among her West African neighbours, and seems to be of the firm belief, that

absolute peace will prevail after the ruling. Ghanaians remain so

optimistic- the trust in God for everything including peace, is absolute.

*No Justice no Peace:*

While the church and mosque have turned to God, some politicians who may or

may not be part of the church or mosque; are pressing the “no peace without

justice” mantra - making justice a condition precedent for peace in error.

Thankfully, Ghanaians agree that justice is dispensed by the judiciary in

the law courts.

And in the election petition before the Supreme Court, both petitioners and

respondents have been given fair and equal opportunity to be heard. To that

end, the justice requirement has been satisfied.

There is therefore no justification whatsoever, for any one to preach “no

justice no peace’. Justice has been present and we have all seen it

dispensed in a few instances by the same panel of judges ahead of the

delivery of judgment in the substantive case before them. It is in our

collective interest to reject the misplaced mantra.

*Unity Government vs. Power – Sharing:*

Recent suggestion by the Metropolitan Archbishop of Accra, Most Reverend

Gabriel Charles Palmer-Buckle, that Ghana adopts a unity governance system

after the Supreme Court ruling for the next three years in order to bring

down the political tension in the country, does not taste palatable to

beneficiaries and perpetrators of the obnoxious winner takes all system of

governance operating in the country.

No where in the media account attributed to the Archbishop, did he suggest

“power-sharing”- a completely different construction has been put on the

man of God’s otherwise good suggestion to make it appear unreasonable and

politically incorrect. Unity government is synonymous with inclusive

government, where a party in power “draws’ members of other political

persuasions into its fold to steer affairs of the country. Indeed,

paragraph 2 of the account published at “myjoyonline” confirms what the

Archbishop said “He said whoever the August 29 judgment will favor, should

draw members from the losing party to form a government that will steer

affairs of the nation until the 2016 General Elections”.

Clearly, that suggestion is different from power-sharing, which constitutes

a formal legally binding arrangement of partnership in government. The

media must be alert to some of these nuances and help protect the

reputation of statesmen and women who have contributed and continue to

contribute to the peace and stability of Ghana through the sharing of wise

counsel.

*Winner takes all vs. All-inclusive government:*

The winner takes all system of governance, is what prevails in Ghana.

Professors Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, two world class economists,

in their book “Why Nations Fail…” link closed, extractive, exclusionist and

opaque systems of governance to poverty. They make some interesting

references to South Korea and Ghana which all Ghanaian politicians who care

about good governance must read.

Still on the expected Supreme Court ruling, calls for Ghana to eschew the

winner takes all government has gained currency. Unfortunately, these

calls do not come with workable solutions to the problem. Even the

beneficiaries and perpetrators have joined the chorus, which is good to

begin with.

The winner takes all mischief lies in the hybrid constitution we operate.

Contrary to the position presented at an Institute of Economic Affairs

(IEA) forum on the subject last week, only a review of sections of the

hybrid constitution will remove the winner takes all problem from our

governance system. With its extensive powers of appointment and the sole

source of legislation the Executive has beaten the legislature into

absolute submission making the principle of separation of powers and;

checks and balances almost non-existent in Ghana.

*Constitutional Reforms:*

Those who feel the winner takes all must change should join the progressive

campaign to amend the constitution to have Metropolitan, Municipal and

District Chief Executives MMDCEs popularly elected. That way, we can be

assured that people other than those whose political party is in power at

the executive level, can to be included in the governance of the country

through the local government system should they win elections at the local

level.

Secondly, Article 78 (1) which requires the President to appoint majority

of ministers from the legislature weaken parliament. With that arrangement,

legislators look up to the President instead of the Speaker and the people

they represent at the constituency level. Again those who wish to see an

end to winner takes all must support separation of the executive from the

legislature, to make the latter independent, strong and capable of

exercising its oversight responsibilities over the executive without fear

or favour.

Related to the problems of article 78 (1) is the need to stop the practice

of appointing members of the legislature to public boards and corporations.

Members of the legislature find themselves in conflict of interest

situations when they come to exercising their oversight responsibilities

over these boards and corporations.

*Conclusion:*

We have a beautiful country with a very bright future. There is no option

to accepting whatever ruling the Supreme Court hands down on August 29. We

must all embrace it and move on with the reform agenda in our governance

system to surgically remove the winner takes all arrangement and replace it

with an open, inclusive, accountable good governance system that guarantees

prosperity for Ghana and all of her people.

*# # #*

William Dowokpor is a Senior Partner at the Advocacy Communications Group.

E-mail: *billdowokpor@gmail.com* * / Cell:

0243588422.*