Is Ghana Law Bench full of Robots?

A Ghanaian legal practitioner in London, who describes himself as Patriot on the web, had these harsh words for the Judge in Dramani (Bawku Central MP) case, during a private conversation with me. Quote: This guy lacks common sense; he must go back to school to hone the little knowledge he has in Law. God help Ghana, if the legal bench is full of like-minded Law interpreters, who mimic robots: Unquote.

The Judge ruled in absentia against Mr Dramani and disqualified him as a Member of Parliament (MP), for not being a Ghanaian on the grounds that he had dual nationality under some obscure statutory law; whose origin many legal brains in Ghana are now digging the dusty Law books to establish. Patriot posted the following comments on the web, when he first heard the news:

``This is the most stupid interpretation that a Judge anywhere in the world, would give to a law designed to keep foreigners from the seat of government. Our constitutional laws were based on those of the British, but of course over the years our elected and non-elected officials have fiddled with them to incorporate some bizarre laws, like this one, to protect their own interest and not the national interest. Nevertheless, the interpretation of the law by Judges has always taking into account not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the law.

A Judge should take into account the public interest when the spirit of the law is a serious consideration for their final judgement. A Member of Parliament (MP), whose roots can firmly be established by tracing siblings and other relatives in the country of origin, where the MP was born and raised, should present a Judge with ample evidence to enable him/her to see beyond the letter of the law; and not come to the absurd conclusion that this Judge in Dramani’s case, arrived at. The public interest is better served, if a Ghanaian Judge acknowledges that dual nationality is a necessity and not an abdication of birthright by Ghanaian expatriates. Hence, the Judge should have put greater weight on Mr Dramani’s umbilical connection to Ghana than the mere piece of paper that suggested his dual interest.

This is a very poor and shameful judgement that will certainly put off the plans of many Ghanaians living abroad to go home and contribute to build the nation. Ghana cannot afford such luxury, at a time when the country needs all her human resources to maintain a viable economy. Those in authority should act quickly to repair the anomaly in the law or the appeal court should set precedence by finding in favour of Mr Dramani. The law is an ass as it stands now and must urgently be modified to take into account the umbilical cord of Members of Parliament, when nationality becomes an issue.

My hunch is that 50% of the current MPs will not survive their seats if serious vetting is conducted of their nationality based on this absurd law. I hope the Judge in question is an exception and not the rule in the judiciary; otherwise our democracy will not last long.’’

The truth is Patriot is aware of Rawlings 1992 constitution, which does not recognise dual citizenship. He is also aware of the follow-up Citizenship Act 2000 and the clause Kuffour-led government recently introduced to it, regarding Dual Nationality. None of the follow-up amendment to the 1992 constitutional law, regarding who qualifies as a citizen of Ghana, attempted to redefine explicitly what constitutes a Ghanaian. However, the Dual Nationality clause by Kuffour recognised the right to vote by expatriates with dual nationality registered with an agency of Ghana. Hence, there is an implicit recognition by this clause for expatriates in this category to exercise their rights as Ghanaians. This explains why the ruling by the Judge in Dramani’s case has thrown the legal world into turmoil over who really is a Ghanaian. This is not help by the law’s lack of distinction between a Ghanaian by birth and by naturalization.

Patriot is beside himself with fury over the Dramani’s case and it is a typical reaction from Ghanaians from both the legal and non-legal world that I have encountered in this matter. There is some congruence in both worlds that the law, in its current shape, needs immediate clarification and modification. The law must distinguish between a born Ghanaian and a naturalised Ghanaian. The rights of Ghanaians by birth should be permanently recognised by the law. The consensus is that the law, in its present form, does more harm to the interest of Ghana than good. This is compounded by the rigid interpretation given to it by the unscrupulous Judge, in Dramani’s case. A common sense approach must be applied to the law to reflect what in substance constitutes a Ghanaian.

Ghana’s Constitutional laws should protect the interest and rights of its citizens. Where the law fails demonstrably to uphold citizen’s right and interest, it must be flagged down by the legislative body for correction. The ambiguity surrounding the Law that defines a Ghanaian does not serve the national interest well. Bagbin, the majority leader in Parliament, is said to have remarked that he will frog match Mr Dramani from parliament if Dramani attempted to take a seat in Parliament, because the law does not recognise Dramani as a Ghanaian. In the same breath, Bagbin went on to say that he will regard Mr Dramani as any ordinary Ghanaian, if seen around but not inside parliament. This clearly illustrates the confused nature of the law. Dramani qualifies as a Ghanaian only if he is not looking for a public office, but he is emphatically not a Ghanaian if 40,000 Ghanaians ask him to represent them in Parliament. Where is the logic?

The law was probably useful to Mr Rawlings, in the days when he sought to exile his enemies, who took refuge in other countries, but it has outlived its usefulness. I noticed that Mr Kuffour tried to rationalise this Law with the introduction of Dual Nationality clause, but his failure to redefine what constitutes a Ghanaian, has left the door open for a judge and other politicians to read anything into it. One would have thought that the dual nationality clause, which recognises the voting rights of Ghanaians abroad, will also see them as Ghanaians. The expectation was that this clause would supersede the old definition of a Ghanaian; but the Judge in Dramani’s case apparently ignored this important fact completely, and has added to the confusion. This has left the definition of a Ghanaian in a more confused state than ever. This confused state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue, because a lot ride on it, in so far as the national interest is concerned. The Appeal Court can redress the balance and introduce sanity into the Law by overturning the ruling at the high court; and set precedence for future court ruling on similar cases. Alternatively, Parliament should make it a priority and revisit the law to give it clarity.

I will seriously implore our parliamentarians to take a serious look at themselves; and ask in all honesty, whether the nation will not be poorer without the patronage of Ghana expatriates in her public life. At best our economy is described as an emerging market, and Ghana has not developed to her full potential; so we cannot pick and choose, like other developed nations, when it comes to the available human resources for our development. In effect the pool of talent to draw from, in order to add some sprint into Ghana’s heel of development, should not be narrowly defined, as this ancient law seeks to do. It must be remembered that the average career life of an MP is four years, so the incentive to renounce citizenship to take up a career in Parliament is not great for most Ghanaians already established, professionally, in their adopted countries.

It makes sense to consider extended family, as the substance, when defining a Ghanaian. It defies logic and even common sense to take away the birthright of someone with strong connection to a country. This strong connection may be family members that consist of several generations back, whose sweat and blood laid the foundation for Ghana. A mere piece of paper should not be sufficient, in itself, to take the right of citizenship from a Ghanaian who is born and bred in Ghana; and has surviving relatives firmly established in the country.

Kwaku Frimpong