27
MenuWallOpinions
Articles

Summary of Petition to Stop Discrimiation Against Dual Citizens

Sat, 23 Jun 2012 Source: Asare, Kwaku S.

Petition to Amend the Constitution of Ghana, 1992 (Articles 94(2)(a) and 8(2))

and the Citizenship Act, 2000 (Act 591, Section 16(2))

Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare

This is a petition to amend the Constitution of Ghana by repealing Articles 94(2)(a)

and 8(2) of the Constitution. It also proposes the repealing of Section 16(2) of the

Citizenship Act, 2000 (Act 591). Article 94(2)(a) provides that “A person shall not

be qualified to be a member of Parliament if he owes allegiance to a country other

than Ghana.” Article 8(2) of the Constitution and Section 16(2) of the Citizenship

Act exclude dual citizens from holding various specified and unspecified public

offices and give Parliament and the minister the power to add more office-holding

exclusions.

These exclusions create a class of citizens who cannot serve in Parliament, the

Supreme Court or as ministers in the Executive branch. Thus, the exclusions have the

effect of creating sub-citizens, quarantined from serving in the organs of

government, and are antithetical to the structure and spirit of the Constitution, which

strives for equal citizenship and rejects a caste system.

A substantial majority of dual citizens are citizens of Ghana by birth who have

subsequently acquired the citizenships of other countries. They acquire these other

citizenships for a variety of reasons, including marriage, residence, political asylum

(especially in the military era) and economics.

Regardless of why they have acquired these other citizenships, they have complete,

total and unwavering loyalty, fidelity and allegiance to our beloved country and have

amply demonstrated, through their continued involvement in our socio-political life,

their commitment to joining hands with their brethren to work towards building a

prosperous country for our posterity.

Most of these dual citizens have been educated at the country’s secondary schools

and universities at great cost to the nation. They have considerable knowledge of the

country’s history and institutions. They are an important part of the human capital of

this country. Our country is not well served by denying these citizens the opportunity

to serve in Parliament, on the Supreme Court and as ministers in the Executive

branch and in other specified offices.

It appears concerns about the “fidelity and loyalty” of dual citizens underly the

regime of exclusions (in Articles 94(2)(a), 8(2) and Act 591) and dangerous drift

towards a segregated society. As the Attorney-General has recently stated to the

Supreme Court, “How can the loyalty of say a Colonel in the Ghanaian Army be

guaranteed if there is a war between Ghana and Nigeria and the said Colonel holds

both citizenship of Ghana and Nigeria? How can one be sure of the commitment and

loyalty of Ghanaian High Commissioner to UK if there is a diplomatic row between

Ghana and UK when the same Ghanaian High Commissioner holds a British

citizenship as well?”

Yet, when the Attorney-General was challenged to provide empirical evidence to

justify the concerns about loyalty and fidelity, he was not able to name even one dual

citizen who had betrayed or attempted to betray the country. Appropriately, our

nation has not allowed concerns about loyalty and fidelity to stand in the way of

fielding dual citizens like Kevin Prince Boateng and Abedi Ayew in the Black Stars,

even though the game of soccer, with only 11 players, present better opportunities

for “sabotage” than that of legislating, where an MP is one of 230. It is also difficult

to fathom why a Ghanaian born citizen who has acquired the citizenship of another

country cannot be employed as the Chief Fire Officer, Commissioner (Value Added

Tax Service) or the Chief Director of a Ministry.

If anyone should be concerned about the loyalty of say a Ghanaian born dual citizen

Colonel in the Ghanaian Army, in the unlikely event of a war between Ghana and

Nigeria, should it not be Nigeria? What, in our national psychology, allows us to

doubt the loyalty and fidelity of our own brethren who grew up on our streets,

attended our schools, own property in the country, contribute to the national

economy and take care of our parents, merely because they have also acquired the

citizenship of another country? Why can a Ghanaian citizen who has subsequently

acquired the citizenship of Britain be an MP in Britain but not in Ghana? If the

British have no concerns about the fidelity and loyalty of a Ghanaian by birth who

has only recently acquired British citizenship, why should we have doubts about this

son of the land?

Fortunately, there is evidence to suggest that the concern about loyalty and fidelity is

not widely felt. Recent field evidence shows that an overwhelming majority (in

excess of 60%) of Ghanaians believe that dual citizens should not be disqualified

from serving as MPs or as ministers.

While the Supreme Court recently upheld some of the exclusions, it did so without

endorsing the Republic’s concerns about the fidelity and loyalty of dual citizens. In

fact, the Supreme Court described as “cogent,” the plaintiff’s dismantling of the

Republic’s concerns about fidelity and loyalty. Nevertheless, the Court upheld some

of the exclusions, noting that “bad and unsound legislative policy is not necessarily

unconstitutional.” Further, the Supreme Court struck down Section 16(2)(m) of Act

591 as unconstitutional, in that Parliament unlawfully delegated its powers to the

minister. While it may not be the province of the Supreme Court to pronounce laws,

based on bad and unsound policy, as unconstitutional, there is no sound reason to

exclude a significant portion of our human capital from our governance and

developmental activities based on bad and unsound policy.

One member of the Supreme Court (Justice Sophia Akuffo) reiterated that

Citizenship connotes the enjoyment of a bundle of rights, which can be curtailed by

following clear legal provisions. She reasoned that the power given to Parliament to

add to the list of public office holding exclusions under Act 527 is an unlawful

hijacking of the process for amending the Constitution. Further, when Parliament

excluded dual citizens from holding additional offices under Act 591, Parliament

unlawfully amended Article 8(2) of the Constitution. Accordingly, she held that

Article 8(2)(g) was unlawfully inserted into the Constitution and is unconstitutional.

She also held that Act 591, Sections 16(2)(a), (h) – (l) was unconstitutional (these are

the additional offices proscribed by Parliament in 2000). In her words, “to hold

otherwise would be very dangerous and make a mockery of constitutional provisions

such as Article 8(2), which particularized specific matters, thereby eventually

reducing the Constitution to the status of an ordinary statute, as evidenced by what

Parliament has attempted to do in section 16(2) of Act 527.”

Some have suggested that dual citizenships renounce their other citizenships as a

condition precedent to holding the excluded public offices, even if the exclusions are

based on unsound and bad policy. The suggestions that dual citizens renounce their

other citizenships as a condition to hold the specified public offices is unduly harsh,

unreasonable and serves no legitimate purpose. These offices are elective or

appointive and the electors and appointors can properly incorporate any effect of

dual citizenship in their voting and appointing decisions. That is, why not let the

voters and appointors decide whether they want to elect a dual citizen as an MP or

appoint same as the Chief Fire Officer?

The exclusions are also irrational because dual citizens have served and can serve at

the office of the Presidency, including serving as Chief of Staff and deputy Chief of

Staff. If dual citizens can serve as Chief of Staff of the President, which arguably is

one of the most powerful positions in the country, then it is unfathomable and

irrational to exclude them from serving in positions, such as a Chief Fire Officer or

as Members of Parliament.

Further, the requirement that dual citizens renounce their other citizenships is

discriminatory, disproportional and devalues their dignity. It is discriminatory

because it requires dual citizens to give up their ability to travel to their other

countries while single citizens who are permanent residents (of other countries) do

not give up this ability when they opt to serve the country. That is, renouncing their

citizenships, as a condition precedent to serving, forces dual citizens to give up their

residence as well, while single citizens are not similarly required to give up their

residence. It is also discriminatory in treating dual citizens differently from single

citizens who are ordinarily resident in Ghana.

The current regime of exclusions is an affront on the dignity of dual citizens. The

exclusionary regime questions their patriotism, integrity and citizenship, premised

solely upon their circumstances without considering their individual capacities or

merits. The exclusions violate their human dignity by marginalizing, ignoring, and

devaluing them. The exclusions impose harsh sanctions on them without any

evidence of wrongdoing, save a mere and unfounded suspicion that they lack total

loyalty and fidelity. Yet, there is not a single dual citizen who has been found to be

disloyal to the country while there are many instances of single citizens

overthrowing the constitution (treason) or leaking sensitive information to various

embassies, as recently revealed by the wikileaks files.

Dual citizens, as citizens of this country, have interests and have a fundamental right

to fully engage in the political process, including the ability to serve in all elected

and appointed public offices.

Dual citizens and Ghanaians in the diaspora support the national economy with their

remittances. In 2010, remittances or private unrequited transfers (net) in the year

amounted to $2.12 billion. This evidences their loyalty and commitment to the

country. In the history of the 4th Republic and the country, there is not a single case,

where a dual citizen has been found to disloyal, infidel or otherwise harm the interest

of the country as a result of their dual citizenship. On the other hand, many dual

citizens played an active role in creating the conditions that led to the establishment

of the 4th Republic.

Our country is at its best when we allow all our citizens to be full and equal citizens.

This is what defined us in South Africa, when the Black Stars dazzled the world with

its brand of soccer. This is the spirit that led to the selection of Prince Kevin

Boateng, a dual citizen, born in Germany to Ghanaian parents, to play against the

Germany national team. Neither his loyalty nor his fidelity was questioned even

though the short-duration, fast-paced, and lack of controls in a soccer game,

exarcebate any concerns about loyalty and fidelity.

In the rest of the petition (available upon request from the author), we provide

constitutional and statutory background, followed by an articulation of the equal

citizenship principle. We then present the case for why the exclusions are inconsistent

with our constitutional values. Draft bills are attached in Schedule 1.

Petitioned:

The Speaker of Parliament

All Members of Parliament

His Excellency the President

His Excellency the Vice-President

Chairman of NDC, NPP, CPP, PNC and PPP

All Presidential Candidates for 2012 general election

cc: Media

Columnist: Asare, Kwaku S.