HER AFARI GYAN,YOU DO NOT RESPECT GHANAIANS,WHY ALL THESE SHIT TO CREAT GENOCIDE IN GHANA HERE,YOU ARE INCOMPETANT.
HER AFARI GYAN,YOU DO NOT RESPECT GHANAIANS,WHY ALL THESE SHIT TO CREAT GENOCIDE IN GHANA HERE,YOU ARE INCOMPETANT.
JM IS PRESIDENT 11 years ago
HOW ON EARTH DID YOU MANAGE TO VOMIT OUT YOUR USELESS COMMENT IN YOUR COMATOSE STATE FROM YOUR STAGE 4 BRAIN CANCER???? WOW WONDERS WILL NEVER CEASE...
HOW ON EARTH DID YOU MANAGE TO VOMIT OUT YOUR USELESS COMMENT IN YOUR COMATOSE STATE FROM YOUR STAGE 4 BRAIN CANCER???? WOW WONDERS WILL NEVER CEASE...
ATSU, HO 11 years ago
MAY THE TRUTH ALWAYS STAND.
DID MAHAMA WIN THE ELECTION GENUINELY, THEN LET THE RESULTS SATND.
DID THE ELECTORAL OFFICERS COMMIT ERRORS AND THAT IS WHY HE WON? THEN TOO BAD THE RIGHT THING SHOULD BE DONE. I WISH FOR THE TRU ... read full comment
MAY THE TRUTH ALWAYS STAND.
DID MAHAMA WIN THE ELECTION GENUINELY, THEN LET THE RESULTS SATND.
DID THE ELECTORAL OFFICERS COMMIT ERRORS AND THAT IS WHY HE WON? THEN TOO BAD THE RIGHT THING SHOULD BE DONE. I WISH FOR THE TRUTH AND GH. AS THE WINNER
SGT ANANI FIADZOE 11 years ago
Until the effect of heavy marijuana smoking is over Nana cannot realise that he lost the 2012 elections.
But we must sympathise with Nana because a drug addict is worse than a mad man - both live in a different world of th ... read full comment
Until the effect of heavy marijuana smoking is over Nana cannot realise that he lost the 2012 elections.
But we must sympathise with Nana because a drug addict is worse than a mad man - both live in a different world of their own. Nana so so terrifying that no NPP member has the balls to let him know that the game is over!
Nana Akua 11 years ago
Yes and mahama will be defeated in court in JESUS name. Amen,not fit.
Yes and mahama will be defeated in court in JESUS name. Amen,not fit.
Akadu Mensema 11 years ago
Well-written and demonstrates a clear understanding of the legalities entailed.
Well-written and demonstrates a clear understanding of the legalities entailed.
A GERSIS 11 years ago
GVYB TV
A Gersis reporting
Fellow Ghanaians
NEBBISH! OH NEBBISH! You are indeed a poetaster whose verse never rises above what is found on greeting cards at MAKOLA MARKET. This means you are the literary equivalen ... read full comment
GVYB TV
A Gersis reporting
Fellow Ghanaians
NEBBISH! OH NEBBISH! You are indeed a poetaster whose verse never rises above what is found on greeting cards at MAKOLA MARKET. This means you are the literary equivalent of a 'Nattering Nabobs of Negativism.'
Your poems if they could be read at all have messages that are not appealing. The delivery of your craft is seldom incandescent: your write ups sprinkled with astonishing semi-sequiturs and malaprops....
THIS is a sick woman poetaster!
ANTONIO GERSIS
PLAZA ONE
DALLAS
JM IS PRESIDENT 11 years ago
PLS FORGIVE AGERSIS...THE WITCH DOCTOR WHO DELIVERED HIM DROPPED HIM ON HIS HEAD AND WELL....YOU SEE THE RESULT?!
PLS FORGIVE AGERSIS...THE WITCH DOCTOR WHO DELIVERED HIM DROPPED HIM ON HIS HEAD AND WELL....YOU SEE THE RESULT?!
Kpengson Ray 11 years ago
I think A. GERSIS and Akadu Mensema are in love! That is how some start their love affair-by quarreling before they bond and make love!
I think A. GERSIS and Akadu Mensema are in love! That is how some start their love affair-by quarreling before they bond and make love!
PHILTY McNASTY 11 years ago
AKADU,
Apparently legal matters are not his best suit and he won't restrain himself from laying bare his ignorance of the law, same as Asiedu Nketia and like minded. No wonder the NDC keep losing cases at the courts.
AKADU,
Apparently legal matters are not his best suit and he won't restrain himself from laying bare his ignorance of the law, same as Asiedu Nketia and like minded. No wonder the NDC keep losing cases at the courts.
HolyGhost 11 years ago
Yeah, the work of a scholar indeed. Do you think Ghana is govern by bush laws that you can twist and turn to suit your purpose.
Yeah, the work of a scholar indeed. Do you think Ghana is govern by bush laws that you can twist and turn to suit your purpose.
Paul Amuna 11 years ago
It means you do not know a good piece of work when you see one. Of all the opinions given on constitutional matters in this forum, I am afraid this is the weakest I have read so far, and I am neutral. Akaduah, it seems your c ... read full comment
It means you do not know a good piece of work when you see one. Of all the opinions given on constitutional matters in this forum, I am afraid this is the weakest I have read so far, and I am neutral. Akaduah, it seems your choice of what a good article or option is rather skewed and not based on critical intellectual analysis. That's rather unfortunate.
Akadu Mensema 11 years ago
It is not good, but you couldn't even speall out what is not good! We call it cheap shot!
It is not good, but you couldn't even speall out what is not good! We call it cheap shot!
DAVID ATUGIYA 11 years ago
Paul, you are right, without sounding offensive, this is one of the most intellectual dishonest piece that I have ever read. In attempt to justify the unjustifiable Nana has to sought to make some of us wonder whether he is a ... read full comment
Paul, you are right, without sounding offensive, this is one of the most intellectual dishonest piece that I have ever read. In attempt to justify the unjustifiable Nana has to sought to make some of us wonder whether he is a Lawyer. It also strengthens my position that Ghanaians should not leave constitutional issues to only our legal friends.
How could Nana think that the framers of the 1992 constitution did not factor in the fact a sitting president could be a presidential candidate in any given elections in the country?
Nana, as a confused Lawyer should be reminded that the constitution provides for two terms of office for any qualified Ghanaians who aspire to the highest office.
So Article 57 (5) which gives absolute immunity to a sitting President against any personal prosecution ( civil or criminal) while in office, had taken cognisance of that fact a sitting President could be a presidential candidate. Article 57 (5) , was or is suppose to protect the President from any unnecessary distractions from his job while in office.
Nana should therefore know that no matter the spin he tries to put on this particular failed case by the NPP, the President cannot be sued. THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE
Charlie 11 years ago
The reason why it is weak and not intellectually up to standard is his dishonesty.It was a plagiarized work with no courtesy of reference to sources and proper acknowledgement vital to academic writings.For example see what G ... read full comment
The reason why it is weak and not intellectually up to standard is his dishonesty.It was a plagiarized work with no courtesy of reference to sources and proper acknowledgement vital to academic writings.For example see what Google say about the subject without prejudice and you will see where his line of argument is coming from.
From Google
Without any loss or waiver of rights or privileges.
When a lawsuit is dismissed, the court may enter a judgment against the plaintiff with or without prejudice. When a lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice, it signifies that none of the rights or privileges of the individual involved are considered to be lost or waived. The same holds true when an admission is made or when a motion is denied without prejudice.
The inclusion of the term without prejudice in a judgment of dismissal ordinarily indicates the absence of a decision on the merits and leaves the parties free to litigate the matter in a subsequent action, as though the dismissed action had not been started. Therefore, a dismissal without prejudice makes it unnecessary for the court in which the subsequent action is brought to determine whether that action is based on the same cause as the original action, or whether the identical parties are involved in the two actions.
The purpose and effect of the words without prejudice in a judgment, order, or decree dismissing a suit are to prohibit the defendant from using the doctrine of Res Judicata in any later action by the same plaintiff on the subject matter. The doctrine of res judicata (from the Latin, "a thing decided") is based on the importance of finality in the law. If a court decides a case, the subject of that case is firmly and finally decided between the persons involved in the suit, so no new lawsuit on the same subject may be brought by the persons involved. Therefore, the words without prejudice protect the plaintiff from a defendant's res judicata defense.
A court may also enter judgment with prejudice, however. This signifies that the court has made an adjudication on the merits of the case and a final disposition, barring the plaintiff from bringing a new lawsuit based on the same subject. If a new lawsuit is brought, a defendant can properly invoke res judicata as a defense, because a court will not relitigate a matter that has been fully heard before. Often a court will enter a judgment with prejudice if the plaintiff has shown bad faith, misled the court, or persisted in filing frivolous lawsuits.
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 11 years ago
Nana, thank you for your excellent contribution this important debate on constitutional law development in Ghana. Unlike me, I guess you are a lawyer, so pardon if I make a fool of myself in my comment.
Whilst I agree with ... read full comment
Nana, thank you for your excellent contribution this important debate on constitutional law development in Ghana. Unlike me, I guess you are a lawyer, so pardon if I make a fool of myself in my comment.
Whilst I agree with you on the interpretation you offered regarding the words "without prejudice" in Article 57 (4)and (5) in relation to Article 2 (1)(a)and(b) (2)(3) and (4), I disagree with you on your application to the current situation. My understanding of the "without prejudice" among others is to enable aggrieved parties the right to sue the President (personally) in the near future when the President is no longer in office. It is not a blanket licence for the President to be sued (personally)whilst in office.
I also agree with you that the President can be sued whilst in office but not personally, that is, any unconstitutional actions and omissions of the president could be challenged at the Supreme Court. However, in t such situations the party challenging such actions or omissions by the President will bring the action against the state and not the President (though the subject matter of the claim was the direct action or omission of the President).
The other means by which the President could be sued whilst in office is the removal of the President from office. In that case the only court the president will face is the court of the legislature. In other words, an impeachment hearing. The President may also be required under special arrangement to appear before a special prosecutor to account for his actions and omissions such as the case of Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky affair but that is not a trial though such actions could also lead to impeachment trial.
In most democracies, the protection or immunity given to presidents and heads of state from legal action whilst in office is sacrosanct. However, Ghana's democracy is not well developed and still developing and I believe that NPP's petition will certainly contribute to such development. However, there is also the risk of uncertainty regarding the matter of whether the President could be sued personally whilst in office with the potential to weaken or strengthen that office.
This problem, in my view has been created by the SC rules that appear to contravene certain sections of the Constitution. I suspect those who drafted the rules did not envisage the current situation where a sitting president seeking re-election could be challenged not only as a candidate or President Elect but also as a stting President. In the current situation, John Dramani Mahama is not only President Elect but also the sitting President and so the apparent confusion or the ongoing debate as to whether he could be sued personally. Once he was re-elected, he does not continue to bear the title President Elect but only President. In my view, the SC must clarify this anomaly since the Constitution is superior to the SC Rules. Even Acts of Parliament are subservient to the Constitution and any Acts, Constitutional Instruments and secondary legislation by way of case law (judicial decisions)that contravene the constitutional are unconstitutional.
I do not think that NPP should be blamed for making the President a respondent in their petition because that is what the SC rules says, so they had no option but to act accordingly. The President may have the right to ask the SC to clarify that as sitting President he has immunity from any legal action personally. That will give the SC an opportunity to further develop Constitutional law in Ghana.
You are also absolutely right that the petition before the SC will be decided solely on its merit (the contents of the petition, any additions or otherwise and what happens at the hearing). However, other relevant matters that may be in the public domain such as press conferences, public pronouncements by all parties on the subject matter could be admissible though that is a matter for the Justices to decide and not public opinion.
Happy New and keep up the good job.
Paul Amuna 11 years ago
You raise some very good points and I agree with you.
You raise some very good points and I agree with you.
OYOKOBA 11 years ago
Simple question Kofi Ata and others. Let's say we have the same electoral challenges, but this time around the person who benefited from the irregularities was Akufo Addo rather than John Mahama; will the sitting president, ... read full comment
Simple question Kofi Ata and others. Let's say we have the same electoral challenges, but this time around the person who benefited from the irregularities was Akufo Addo rather than John Mahama; will the sitting president, John Mahama have been entitled to sue the EC and Akufo Addo? If the answer is yes then in similar fashion he Mahama too can be sued.
That is my two cents. We have an unprecedented situation which calls for judicial review or interpretation. It is precisely so the NPP is seeking redress at the SC. Those who are saying the NPP shouldn't have included the president in the sue are just risk averse, let the Supreme Court decide. That's all.
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 11 years ago
Oyokoba, you have asked a good question, though your question could be suggestive that the President is constitutionally barred from personally taking legal action against any party. No, far from it. There is nothing preventi ... read full comment
Oyokoba, you have asked a good question, though your question could be suggestive that the President is constitutionally barred from personally taking legal action against any party. No, far from it. There is nothing preventing the President as a person and or as the office holder from suing any party. Again, the President has the "prerogative" under the Constitution to act as he sees fit and appropriate within the Constitution. So the simple answer to your question is that the President can sue any party whilst still in office (either in his personal capacity or both individually and or severally with the office he holds but in that case it would be advisable to be the state but not necessarily).
DAVID ATUGIYA 11 years ago
Lawyer Nana needs quality education. He should with all humility take lessons from your kofi's brilliant reaction to his porous and dishonest piece.
Lawyer Nana needs quality education. He should with all humility take lessons from your kofi's brilliant reaction to his porous and dishonest piece.
Seth 11 years ago
These are the people you really understand them not those uneducated like Asiedu Nketia and co. Well said for describing out the details concerning whether the president can or not be sued. Infact i wish you come out and expl ... read full comment
These are the people you really understand them not those uneducated like Asiedu Nketia and co. Well said for describing out the details concerning whether the president can or not be sued. Infact i wish you come out and explain to those who don't really understand our constitution so they can no more and stop making unuseless noise and soforth.
Pumpuni 11 years ago
Good job. Well done. Thank you.
Good job. Well done. Thank you.
Gyataba 11 years ago
I think this article has been well explained. I can't seem to understand the fuss people are making on the airwaves. Let us leave it to the supreme court to decide. It appears like every one in Ghana is a lawyer now, yet when ... read full comment
I think this article has been well explained. I can't seem to understand the fuss people are making on the airwaves. Let us leave it to the supreme court to decide. It appears like every one in Ghana is a lawyer now, yet when people get to court they start shaking like leaves. You do not hear that scale of discussions in any civilised country.Kwasi Pratt, the Asiedu Nketia's so call NDC lawyers should give us a break. In any case the case will be in court. Why the noise? If one wants to contest whether the president can be sued or not you know where it is contested, the court. Simple...and that is where it is decided. Those who filed the suit are quite because the know the court is the right place to argue their case not on radio or tv. God have mercy on these NDC Lawyers and lunatic surrogates, especially kwesi pratt pls.
Jack Where are u 11 years ago
You don't know what you are talking about. who brought this case to court of public opinion? Definitely the NPP! Their motive was to bring the lawyer in Guardians, why complain now. Who told u NPP spokesmen aren't on radio de ... read full comment
You don't know what you are talking about. who brought this case to court of public opinion? Definitely the NPP! Their motive was to bring the lawyer in Guardians, why complain now. Who told u NPP spokesmen aren't on radio defending their cause. They accuse NDC and still expect them to keep off the court of public opinion set up by the NPP, hmmmm. Remember they will effectively defuse your court propaganda as they did to the free SHS! That article doesn't communicate to lay persons, and that is exactly how NPP communicates. They need to learn from the NDC on how to reach out to the ordinary person. For this reason, NDC defeated the NPP in the polls.
Sadam 11 years ago
You have done well by this article. Your point is well made and understood.
You have done well by this article. Your point is well made and understood.
Kwame Fiadjoe 11 years ago
Well written substantive narrative.John Ndebuguri is merely posturing for a potential cabinet position.He and others committed atrocities against Ghanaians during the Rawlings era.He lacks depth and he is ill- equipped for a ... read full comment
Well written substantive narrative.John Ndebuguri is merely posturing for a potential cabinet position.He and others committed atrocities against Ghanaians during the Rawlings era.He lacks depth and he is ill- equipped for a ministerial position.
Odiyifo 11 years ago
Too many bogus english words signifying nothing. Yes we know even God can be sued. Anybody on earth can be sued by any fool or idiot but it is just a waste of our precious time because it will be thrown out like gabbage. play ... read full comment
Too many bogus english words signifying nothing. Yes we know even God can be sued. Anybody on earth can be sued by any fool or idiot but it is just a waste of our precious time because it will be thrown out like gabbage. playing on words "prejudice", "sueable but not insulated". Idiotic article.
Kofi - USA 11 years ago
ODIYIFO, I DONT SEE TOO MANY BOGUS ENGLISH IN THE ARTICLE. THIS IS A WELL WRITTEN AND INFORMATIVE. IT MAKES IT CLEAR WHAT NDC LAWYERS HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO ARTICULATE. NO WONDER THEY HAVE BEEN LOSING CASES AT THE COURTS. LIK ... read full comment
ODIYIFO, I DONT SEE TOO MANY BOGUS ENGLISH IN THE ARTICLE. THIS IS A WELL WRITTEN AND INFORMATIVE. IT MAKES IT CLEAR WHAT NDC LAWYERS HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO ARTICULATE. NO WONDER THEY HAVE BEEN LOSING CASES AT THE COURTS. LIKE SOMEONE SUGGGESTED LET US LEAVE IT TO THE SUPREME COURT TO DO ITS JOB. GREAT PIECE OF ARTICLE TO READ.
Aryeetey 11 years ago
1. Writer clearly doesn't know how to make the verb forms agree with their subjects. Once can be overlooked but not several times.
2. He doesn't know the difference between "been" and "being".
3. Very terrible punctuat ... read full comment
1. Writer clearly doesn't know how to make the verb forms agree with their subjects. Once can be overlooked but not several times.
2. He doesn't know the difference between "been" and "being".
3. Very terrible punctuation.
All these detract from an otherwise informative legal opinion.
Kirk Morris 11 years ago
Legal language differs in many aspects. There is nothing wrong with article. You're just astonished. The article exposes the NDC.
Legal language differs in many aspects. There is nothing wrong with article. You're just astonished. The article exposes the NDC.
Aryeetey 11 years ago
Does legal language allow you to say
There are issues which needs clarification...
Or
It is the contest which is been disputed.
and many more...
Mind you, I didn't say there was something wrong with the content ... read full comment
Does legal language allow you to say
There are issues which needs clarification...
Or
It is the contest which is been disputed.
and many more...
Mind you, I didn't say there was something wrong with the contents of the article but the mistakes of basic grammar detracted from my full enjoyment of the article.
And why should the article astonish me? What is astonishing in the legal opinion that Mahama can be sued?
What astonished me is the bad grammar!
G. K. Berko 11 years ago
Aryeetey's exchange with Nana Akwah and Kirk Morris is an interesting one on Writing skills.
I'll give this one to Aryeetey. He makes a good point. However, he must accept that many of us come here rushing to make a poin ... read full comment
Aryeetey's exchange with Nana Akwah and Kirk Morris is an interesting one on Writing skills.
I'll give this one to Aryeetey. He makes a good point. However, he must accept that many of us come here rushing to make a point, and in the course make lots of grammatical errors which, for lack of time, go uncorrected before submission for publication. Many of us, simply, don't get the time to review or proofread what we write before publishing.
I am guilty of that, too. For any serious scholarstic or legal piece we present for submission, I think we ought to find the time to write better with the appropriate Grammar.
Long Live Ghana!!
Aryeetey 11 years ago
... certain mistakes are not just a matter of rushing through and not having time to proofread. If you make a certain type of mistake three or four times in a short piece, then it's no longer a mistake which is the result of ... read full comment
... certain mistakes are not just a matter of rushing through and not having time to proofread. If you make a certain type of mistake three or four times in a short piece, then it's no longer a mistake which is the result of being in a hurry.
When we make mistakes in the comments' section, those can easily be overlooked cos we're always in a hurry and once we hit "Post" there's no turning back. But not when we take the time to write a nice and informative article like the guy has done.
My solution is to always let a friend or two read through what you've written. You'll be surprised at how easily they can point out certain simple mistakes that you overlooked.
Thank you G. K . Thank you Nana Akwah. We're all learning all the time.
Long live Ghana and may we always live in peace.
Sani 11 years ago
From his response bellow to Aryeetey, the writer still hasn't realised his mistakes. It's not due to no time to proofread. He simply does not know that point of grammar!
From his response bellow to Aryeetey, the writer still hasn't realised his mistakes. It's not due to no time to proofread. He simply does not know that point of grammar!
Nana Akwah 11 years ago
Aryeetey, I do not write in passive terms.
Aryeetey, I do not write in passive terms.
Aryeetey 11 years ago
If your subject is in the singular, the verb form must also be in the singular. This has nothing to do with passive/active. Your irregular punctuations leave certain clauses to be read as full sentences. That has nothing to d ... read full comment
If your subject is in the singular, the verb form must also be in the singular. This has nothing to do with passive/active. Your irregular punctuations leave certain clauses to be read as full sentences. That has nothing to do with passive/active!
You made a good legal case. You should have given the piece to someone to point out the grammatical mistakes for you and the piece would have been perfect.
KING 11 years ago
NDC LAWYERS ARE RADIO LAWYERS
NDC LAWYERS ARE RADIO LAWYERS
Fred Baah 11 years ago
Why do you bastardise the actions of your political opponents by calling them propagandists. This is the same mistake you made to lose the election. If i were you I would listen to them very well before making any comment. Mi ... read full comment
Why do you bastardise the actions of your political opponents by calling them propagandists. This is the same mistake you made to lose the election. If i were you I would listen to them very well before making any comment. Mind you The operative statement does not take away the context in which it is stated. The president was sued as president of the Republic of Ghana and not the Presidential candidate of NDC
Captain mosquito 11 years ago
If a president steals an election he can be sued on that. He cannot steal elections, and go free and say I cannot be sued. This is a recipe for dictatorship. The constitution does not allow that. The courts are a check on thi ... read full comment
If a president steals an election he can be sued on that. He cannot steal elections, and go free and say I cannot be sued. This is a recipe for dictatorship. The constitution does not allow that. The courts are a check on this dictatorship.
CONCERNED CITIZEN 11 years ago
Nobody is calling the NDC PROPAGANDISTS.NDC is the only political party in Ghana that has the position of PROPAGANDA SECRETARY in their party.
PROPAGANDA IS DEFINED as 1. Information,ideas,rumours deliberately sp ... read full comment
Nobody is calling the NDC PROPAGANDISTS.NDC is the only political party in Ghana that has the position of PROPAGANDA SECRETARY in their party.
PROPAGANDA IS DEFINED as 1. Information,ideas,rumours deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person,group,movement,institution,NATION,etc.
2. Deliberate spreading of such information rumuors or ideas.
3. The particular doctrines or principles by an organization or movement.
NDC are supposed to be a social democratic party.Their policies should be in line with their ideology.
But what do we see,it is rather the NPP who being far right democrats are rather championing social policies in this country.Talk of NHIS,school feeding programme,NYEP,metro bus & train services,street naming,national ID CARD,free basic education etc.
NDC has not been able to identify themselves with any major policies.Those that they embarked on were poorly executed; like the Single Spine Salary Structure.The National ID card exercise undertook by the NDC govt could never materialize.The huge investment made came to nought.The one time premium for the NHIS is now in demise.These are policies which were not or poorly implemented.
When we come to infrastructural development,most of them were not done.The Jute Factory in Kumasi,Sugar Factory in Komenda,SADA in the North,Cape Coast stadium,Kotokraba market,Sofo Line interchange,Kumasi-Accra road,removing schools under trees etc.
Most of these projects were supposed to have been completed;considering the the available resources and the huge loans taken by the NDC gov't.
Coming to my topic,'WHY THE PROPAGANDA SECRETARY' The definition is information,ideas,or rumours deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person,group,movement,institution or nation, the act of doing that & the PRODUCT OF THAT ACTION.
Now,Mr Fred Baah is asking why political opponents are calling NDC PROPAGANDISTS.From the afore-mentioned FACTS,NDC did not do what they promised.This way,all the deliberate widespread of info,ideas or rumours CIRCULATED by them did not in the long run HELP the people but rather HARM them.
just this morning, i heard from the radio,a number of people complaining how dusty the untarred roads have become.Along these roads are people selling food,shops, schools lorry/car parks etc.Some of them have been hospitalized by continuous inhaling of dust.I know this is going on all over the country.This way,the info,ideas & rumours spread widely since the last 4yrs did not HELP but HARM the people.Remember,the late Pres Mills in his campaign before the 2008 election promised to clear ACCRA & other major cities from FILTH within the first 100 days.4yrs after, Ghana is now swallowed in FILTH.Just recently,31st Dec. to be precise, the founder of NDC,Pres. JJ Rawllings cautioned the NDC govt to help as a matter of urgency to clear the nation from FILTH.He said the rate of death from CHOLERA,MALARIA & TYPHOID IS VERY HIGH. NDC again promised the price of fuel will be reduced DRASTICALLY.They rather increased it DRASTICALLY when they came.
Now, the NDC has PROMISED THE ELECTORATE more than they did 4 yrs ago.
The MANDATE has been given to them by the EC.The case is now before the Supreme Court.Let's assume it goes in their favour but they fail again to fulfill their promises as they did to GHANAIANS the last 4yr.Then,one would be RIGHT to call them PROPAGANDISTS.Propaganda as we realized from the definition,can be HELPFUL or HARMFUL depending on the BENEFITS the RECIPIENTS(GHANA) derive from such PROPAGANDA.
NDC has a PROPAGANDA SECRETARY AND NO OTHER PARTY.This shows how serious they are with this ISSUE.But have they used it for the BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE or for the benefit of THEMSELVES?
From this analysis, one can BOLDLY say THE NDC ARE PROPAGANDISTS.Mr Fred Baah,have i made myself clear?Thanks & have a blessed day.
CONCERNED CITIZEN 11 years ago
Read the above!!!!!!!!!!!!
Read the above!!!!!!!!!!!!
BOY KOFI 11 years ago
Please give us a break,go to court and
leave us alone.Thank you.
Please give us a break,go to court and
leave us alone.Thank you.
Paul Amuna 11 years ago
I am sorry to say you have not provided any intellectually stimulating arguments. This article is neither informative nor challenging for me. I am sorry. Please provide something better, however controversial.
I am sorry to say you have not provided any intellectually stimulating arguments. This article is neither informative nor challenging for me. I am sorry. Please provide something better, however controversial.
Sulley Mahama 11 years ago
Paul Amuna's comments look very strange. Nana is made a very intellectually stimulating and educative contribution this discussion. For an uninformed person like Paul Amuna to accuse Nana of providing uninformative discussion ... read full comment
Paul Amuna's comments look very strange. Nana is made a very intellectually stimulating and educative contribution this discussion. For an uninformed person like Paul Amuna to accuse Nana of providing uninformative discussion is absolutely primitive. Nana's contribution is higly appreciative. Amuna's comment can at best be characterized as intellectual dishonesty and ignorance.
Paul Amuna 11 years ago
You are absolutely entitled to your opinions which I respect. I am also sure I am not the only one who sees the serious weaknesses in this opinion posting. I have also read from other experts on this subject and still am of t ... read full comment
You are absolutely entitled to your opinions which I respect. I am also sure I am not the only one who sees the serious weaknesses in this opinion posting. I have also read from other experts on this subject and still am of the view that this is the weakest I have read. Is there a problem with that?
DAVID ATUGIYA 11 years ago
Nana, provided skewed and one of the most intellectual dishonest piece that I have ever come across. Article 57 (5) of the 1992 that gives absolute immunity to a sitting President from any civil or criminal prosecution while ... read full comment
Nana, provided skewed and one of the most intellectual dishonest piece that I have ever come across. Article 57 (5) of the 1992 that gives absolute immunity to a sitting President from any civil or criminal prosecution while in office took cognisance of the fact a sitting President could be a presidential candidate, after all the same 1992 constitution provides for two terms of office for any qualified Ghanaian who wants to president.
So this dishonest misinformation put out by Nana Akwah cannot be allowed without a challenge.
Akadu Mensema 11 years ago
Anyone can say that it is good or bad! Give us your stated opinions!
Anyone can say that it is good or bad! Give us your stated opinions!
Paul Amuna 11 years ago
Akadu my humble opinion is that interpretation of the law or the constitutional instruments in this case is not always clear cut. The best approach to interpreting articles in any law is the neutral appraoch and basing all ar ... read full comment
Akadu my humble opinion is that interpretation of the law or the constitutional instruments in this case is not always clear cut. The best approach to interpreting articles in any law is the neutral appraoch and basing all arguments and deductions on the merit of the case, examining precedents and focusing on facts. Any betrayal of bias or partisanship in the interpretation of articles is wrong. Furthermore one would expect a balanced argument in cases such this this one with relevant and tangible supporting evidence.
Sadly I did not find that in this article hence my stated view. I have no personal interest except to examine the intellectual standing of an article. I don't belong to any of the parties and jquite frankly, I am happy either way so I am not emotionally attached to anyone. This writer betrayed emotional attachment which did not help his case in my view.
yaw-london 11 years ago
very good intellectual work. a must read. ndc take note
very good intellectual work. a must read. ndc take note
ALHAJI KUKRUDU 11 years ago
Do you want to say that those whom you think are only dwelling on Article 57(5) did not read wide to know that there exists Article 57(4)? Continue to tickle yourself and be happy but finally you will laugh at the wrong side ... read full comment
Do you want to say that those whom you think are only dwelling on Article 57(5) did not read wide to know that there exists Article 57(4)? Continue to tickle yourself and be happy but finally you will laugh at the wrong side of your mouth. Nana Addo has lost the election and that is it and is about to disgrace himself again by repeating the PRESIDENT v TSATSU TSIKATA mistake.
ko 11 years ago
This is Google definition of without prejudice which takes away the intellectual analysis.Just restating and copying definition does not make tour write up intellectually stimulating.These are things we already no but still ... read full comment
This is Google definition of without prejudice which takes away the intellectual analysis.Just restating and copying definition does not make tour write up intellectually stimulating.These are things we already no but still believe that the president is insulated from being sued.Case law has already taken care of your reservations.Now read the goggle definition.
Without any loss or waiver of rights or privileges.
When a lawsuit is dismissed, the court may enter a judgment against the plaintiff with or without prejudice. When a lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice, it signifies that none of the rights or privileges of the individual involved are considered to be lost or waived. The same holds true when an admission is made or when a motion is denied without prejudice.
The inclusion of the term without prejudice in a judgment of dismissal ordinarily indicates the absence of a decision on the merits and leaves the parties free to litigate the matter in a subsequent action, as though the dismissed action had not been started. Therefore, a dismissal without prejudice makes it unnecessary for the court in which the subsequent action is brought to determine whether that action is based on the same cause as the original action, or whether the identical parties are involved in the two actions.
The purpose and effect of the words without prejudice in a judgment, order, or decree dismissing a suit are to prohibit the defendant from using the doctrine of Res Judicata in any later action by the same plaintiff on the subject matter. The doctrine of res judicata (from the Latin, "a thing decided") is based on the importance of finality in the law. If a court decides a case, the subject of that case is firmly and finally decided between the persons involved in the suit, so no new lawsuit on the same subject may be brought by the persons involved. Therefore, the words without prejudice protect the plaintiff from a defendant's res judicata defense.
A court may also enter judgment with prejudice, however. This signifies that the court has made an adjudication on the merits of the case and a final disposition, barring the plaintiff from bringing a new lawsuit based on the same subject. If a new lawsuit is brought, a defendant can properly invoke res judicata as a defense, because a court will not relitigate a matter that has been fully heard before. Often a court will enter a judgment with prejudice if the plaintiff has shown bad faith, misled the court, or persisted in filing frivolous lawsuits.
G. K. Berko 11 years ago
when I first read that the President could not be sued, a plethora scenarios rushed to my mind, each increasingly deepening my doubt that the President is 100% insulated from Suits.
Thanks for your contributions. They help ... read full comment
when I first read that the President could not be sued, a plethora scenarios rushed to my mind, each increasingly deepening my doubt that the President is 100% insulated from Suits.
Thanks for your contributions. They help enhance our understanding of many things associated with the topic.
In the simplest form, I asked, for example, if seeking an injunction to restrain the President from acting in certain roles would not amount to a Suit?
We need lots of such type of Education to help us formulate personal strategies that we need to legally interact with the Government and its Officials.
An interesting question like: If a whole Government could be sued, why couldn't an individual within it be sued? Then comes the probable answer that if the individual culprit was identified, his or her vulnerability to Suits would depend more on whether or not his or her offense was delibrate and/or committed in the performance of Official duties.
What if a President was caught red-handed in, say, Murdering a Citizen?
Long Live Ghana!
DAVID ATUGIYA 11 years ago
If a President commits a murder as a citizen while is President according the Article 57(5) he cannot be prosecuted. This article gives any sitting President absolute personal immunity from prosecution in any court on any c ... read full comment
If a President commits a murder as a citizen while is President according the Article 57(5) he cannot be prosecuted. This article gives any sitting President absolute personal immunity from prosecution in any court on any civil or criminal matter. He can only be sued or prosecuted for crimes committed after his term of office is ended. Even then, you can only sue or bring criminal proceeding against him, if the crime committed was done outside his duties while he was President.
Abeeku Mensah 11 years ago
The author is wrong in his analysis contextually and logically Even in Ghana, the framers of our so-called constitution knew then and holds true today is Ghanaians have the affinity for tribal loyalties above the laws of the ... read full comment
The author is wrong in his analysis contextually and logically Even in Ghana, the framers of our so-called constitution knew then and holds true today is Ghanaians have the affinity for tribal loyalties above the laws of the land. Yes the two phrases do have significant meaning but only if they operated only in the judiciary vacuum. What the author Nana Akwah must understand is that while the president cannot be sued in court the prohibition does not and shall not preclude the legislators from bringing articles of impeachment against the sitting president.
For example, if the president is accused of masterminding and or engaging in criminal activities by any Ghanaian or entity which may have the documentation/evidence to prove and or back up such claims, the framers did not want to see the courts dismiss such a case without prejudice thereby precluding the legislators from bringing articles of impeachment against the president?
This is why the framers referenced the "with prejudice clause" and not because they think and or wanted the sitting president to be sued. Good try Nana Akwah.
ko 11 years ago
Just to add that even that is outside the scope of the courts since impeachment can only take place in Parliament.
Just to add that even that is outside the scope of the courts since impeachment can only take place in Parliament.
Fontomfrom 11 years ago
Quote ====> "The Courts do not operate; I say do not operate on public opinions and perceptions."
So your opinion is just a "waste"!
Quote ====> "The Courts do not operate; I say do not operate on public opinions and perceptions."
So your opinion is just a "waste"!
Mr. Okadu 11 years ago
Mr. Akwah, please read this argument well and clarify:"The NPP is not suing President John Dramani Mahama. The Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo, Presidential Candidate/NPP has petitioned the Supreme Court on elections results invo ... read full comment
Mr. Akwah, please read this argument well and clarify:"The NPP is not suing President John Dramani Mahama. The Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo, Presidential Candidate/NPP has petitioned the Supreme Court on elections results involving eight contestants of which John Dramani Mahama was a contestant for the office of President".Now how do you reconcile this point with your conclusion"The big question being asked, is the President “Sueable”? The answer is definitely, yes! It seems you ve forgotten that candidate Mahama is no more President when they are suing him. So if you say is the President sueadble"?Are you not contradicting yourself? I enjoy your article though.
John, USA 11 years ago
Will the supreme court issue an injunction to stop the inauguration? It seems to me that's the right course of action.
Will the supreme court issue an injunction to stop the inauguration? It seems to me that's the right course of action.
obodai 11 years ago
This ndc left wing intellectuals can do a hatchet job.They have accosted the unfortunate npp lawyer who is trying his hands on academic exercise,and have comprehensively demolished him.He has been tackled on his grammar,acade ... read full comment
This ndc left wing intellectuals can do a hatchet job.They have accosted the unfortunate npp lawyer who is trying his hands on academic exercise,and have comprehensively demolished him.He has been tackled on his grammar,academic merit and what do you have again you left wing knights.
Yowza 11 years ago
Thanks for making light as to what is confronting the people of Ghana.
May the righteous be rewarded by the Almighty God at the end of it all.
I do believe what has happened with the election is of God, that the wicked may ... read full comment
Thanks for making light as to what is confronting the people of Ghana.
May the righteous be rewarded by the Almighty God at the end of it all.
I do believe what has happened with the election is of God, that the wicked may be stripped off his clothing.
Whatever 11 years ago
high Sophistry won't help the NPP. President Mahama enters the courtroom, first as the incumbent President of Ghana. The president is not contesting for any election so why are you calling him candidate mahama? NPP Lawyer ban ... read full comment
high Sophistry won't help the NPP. President Mahama enters the courtroom, first as the incumbent President of Ghana. The president is not contesting for any election so why are you calling him candidate mahama? NPP Lawyer banza. There is an existing precedent set by the supreme court which has dismissed the notion that a president is sueable so whats your point
Fo Dela 11 years ago
You set out nicely to educate the public which i personally appreciated but you ended up being very patisan; very unfortunate.
You set out nicely to educate the public which i personally appreciated but you ended up being very patisan; very unfortunate.
Nana Yaw III 11 years ago
The Constitutional Provisions mentioned in your article are reproduced in FULL below to facilitate my little opinion on the issue you discussed:
Article 2
This Constitution shall be the supreme law of Ghana and any other ... read full comment
The Constitutional Provisions mentioned in your article are reproduced in FULL below to facilitate my little opinion on the issue you discussed:
Article 2
This Constitution shall be the supreme law of Ghana and any other law found to be inconsistent with any provision of this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.
2 (1) A person who alleges that - (a) an enactment or anything contained in or done, under the authority of that or any other enactment; or (b) any act or omission of any person; is inconsistent with, or is in contravention of a provision of this Constitution, may bring an action in the Supreme Court for a declaration to that effect.
(2) The Supreme Court shall, for the purposes of a declaration under clause (1) of this article, make such orders and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for giving effect, or enabling effect to be given, to the declaration so made.
(3) Any person or group of persons to whom an order or direction is addressed under clause (2) of this article by the Supreme Court, shall duly obey and carry out the terms of the order or direction.
(4) Failure to obey or carry out the terms of an order or direction made or given under clause (2) of this article constitutes a high crime under this Constitution and shall, in the case of the President or the Vice President, constitute a ground for removal from office under this Constitution.
(5) A person convicted of a high crime under clause (4) of this article shall-
(a) be liable to imprisonment not exceeding ten years without the option of a fine; and
(b) not be eligible for election, or for appointment, to any public office for ten years beginning with the date of the expiration of the term of imprisonment.
Article 57, (4) and (5):
(4) Without prejudice to the provisions of article 2 of this Constitution, and subject to the operation of the prerogative writs, the President shall not, while in office, be liable to proceedings in any court for the performance of his functions, or for any act done or omitted to be done, or purported to be done, or purported to have been done or purporting to be done in the performance of his functions, under this Constitution or any other law.
(5) The President shall not, while in office as President, be personally liable to any civil or criminal proceedings in court.
Now, to some of your most important arguments:
"Of the ‘Articles’ the most important being “article 2 (1)(a), (b); (2), (3) and (4) which mandates the Supreme Court to perform the functions of its Office.
Although, ‘article 57(5) states that the President is not subject to any civil or criminal proceedings in court whilst in office as President. However, the much talked about article 57 has an operative that makes it possible to make a President conform to certain situations.
The operative “without prejudice” of 57(4) in relation to the provisions of ‘article 2’of the Constitution, and subject to the operation of a sanction writ, the President can be sued as in the present circumstance."
You will agree with me that Article 57 clause 4 referes to possible actions brought against the President in performing his duties. The NPP petition is not in reference to an act of the President whilst in performing his duties; so this constitutional provision cannot be used to argue in favour of his presence at the Supreme Court to answer an Electoral case. I should add that I have read the petition and have not found any accusation levelled against the President for being declared as the President-Elect.
This leaves us with article 57 (5), which unequivocally states that "The President shall not, while in office as President, be personally liable to any civil or criminal proceedings in court." If you read the petition, you will realise that the ONLY reason for which John Dramani Mahama has been made the First Respondent is that he has been constitutionally declared winner of the elections. So the question is: Should he be there as a respondent in the first place?
Clifford 11 years ago
Akwah, thank you for your great piece. Please ignore those who are chastising you. Any person who has shown interest in the ongoing legal challenge will agree with you. But, please rewrite your piece by making it more substan ... read full comment
Akwah, thank you for your great piece. Please ignore those who are chastising you. Any person who has shown interest in the ongoing legal challenge will agree with you. But, please rewrite your piece by making it more substantive. Using the "without prejudice" may weaken your argument. You must refer to the "Manual on Election Adjudication in Ghana" by the supreme court to make your points. As you stated earlier in your piece, it's the prior authority of the supreme court to interprete the constitute. Hence, the provision spelt out in the Election adjudication will bring the president elect to court. Thank you once again keep writing.
ACCRAMAN 11 years ago
Whether the President can be sued or not, will soon be determined after the Supreme Court's decision on this ongoing saga between NPP and NDC regarding the just ended elections.
Just wait calmly and see what happens. You w ... read full comment
Whether the President can be sued or not, will soon be determined after the Supreme Court's decision on this ongoing saga between NPP and NDC regarding the just ended elections.
Just wait calmly and see what happens. You will get your answer to the question of sueable or not.
KOGYAM 11 years ago
LEAVE IT TO SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE AND STOP THIS PUBLIC OPINION JUDGEMENT
LEAVE IT TO SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE AND STOP THIS PUBLIC OPINION JUDGEMENT
Wiafe 11 years ago
The presidentcy, parliament, and the supreme court are equally separate--but equal branches of government. However, the president has the trump card--because he can initiate procedures to impeach the justices.
Plus, the c ... read full comment
The presidentcy, parliament, and the supreme court are equally separate--but equal branches of government. However, the president has the trump card--because he can initiate procedures to impeach the justices.
Plus, the court cannot enforce its rulings and depends on the executive (headed by the prsident) to carry out its orders.
Parliament can pass new laws to make redudant supreme court rulings etc.
Clearly the NDC has an advantage. The President can pack the court with NDC sympathizers (as in Kuffour v. Tsikata case) and the NDC controlled parliament can pass new electoral laws that can favor them.
Also the NDC-led government can decide who to run the Electoral Commission. So any future elections--will still be contested.
Democracy is very expensive. Just imagine how much this case will cost the taxpayers--while the average Ghanaian is still struggling...
JUSTMAN 11 years ago
Indeed we agree the President is sueable but not under this circumstance. People voted for him. Who erred? The person whom the people voted for most or less? This is common sense even a child in the mothers womb understand.TH ... read full comment
Indeed we agree the President is sueable but not under this circumstance. People voted for him. Who erred? The person whom the people voted for most or less? This is common sense even a child in the mothers womb understand.THIS ONE IS BEYOND THE UNDETSTANDING OF NPP.
HER AFARI GYAN,YOU DO NOT RESPECT GHANAIANS,WHY ALL THESE SHIT TO CREAT GENOCIDE IN GHANA HERE,YOU ARE INCOMPETANT.
HOW ON EARTH DID YOU MANAGE TO VOMIT OUT YOUR USELESS COMMENT IN YOUR COMATOSE STATE FROM YOUR STAGE 4 BRAIN CANCER???? WOW WONDERS WILL NEVER CEASE...
MAY THE TRUTH ALWAYS STAND.
DID MAHAMA WIN THE ELECTION GENUINELY, THEN LET THE RESULTS SATND.
DID THE ELECTORAL OFFICERS COMMIT ERRORS AND THAT IS WHY HE WON? THEN TOO BAD THE RIGHT THING SHOULD BE DONE. I WISH FOR THE TRU ...
read full comment
Until the effect of heavy marijuana smoking is over Nana cannot realise that he lost the 2012 elections.
But we must sympathise with Nana because a drug addict is worse than a mad man - both live in a different world of th ...
read full comment
Yes and mahama will be defeated in court in JESUS name. Amen,not fit.
Well-written and demonstrates a clear understanding of the legalities entailed.
GVYB TV
A Gersis reporting
Fellow Ghanaians
NEBBISH! OH NEBBISH! You are indeed a poetaster whose verse never rises above what is found on greeting cards at MAKOLA MARKET. This means you are the literary equivalen ...
read full comment
PLS FORGIVE AGERSIS...THE WITCH DOCTOR WHO DELIVERED HIM DROPPED HIM ON HIS HEAD AND WELL....YOU SEE THE RESULT?!
I think A. GERSIS and Akadu Mensema are in love! That is how some start their love affair-by quarreling before they bond and make love!
AKADU,
Apparently legal matters are not his best suit and he won't restrain himself from laying bare his ignorance of the law, same as Asiedu Nketia and like minded. No wonder the NDC keep losing cases at the courts.
Yeah, the work of a scholar indeed. Do you think Ghana is govern by bush laws that you can twist and turn to suit your purpose.
It means you do not know a good piece of work when you see one. Of all the opinions given on constitutional matters in this forum, I am afraid this is the weakest I have read so far, and I am neutral. Akaduah, it seems your c ...
read full comment
It is not good, but you couldn't even speall out what is not good! We call it cheap shot!
Paul, you are right, without sounding offensive, this is one of the most intellectual dishonest piece that I have ever read. In attempt to justify the unjustifiable Nana has to sought to make some of us wonder whether he is a ...
read full comment
The reason why it is weak and not intellectually up to standard is his dishonesty.It was a plagiarized work with no courtesy of reference to sources and proper acknowledgement vital to academic writings.For example see what G ...
read full comment
Nana, thank you for your excellent contribution this important debate on constitutional law development in Ghana. Unlike me, I guess you are a lawyer, so pardon if I make a fool of myself in my comment.
Whilst I agree with ...
read full comment
You raise some very good points and I agree with you.
Simple question Kofi Ata and others. Let's say we have the same electoral challenges, but this time around the person who benefited from the irregularities was Akufo Addo rather than John Mahama; will the sitting president, ...
read full comment
Oyokoba, you have asked a good question, though your question could be suggestive that the President is constitutionally barred from personally taking legal action against any party. No, far from it. There is nothing preventi ...
read full comment
Lawyer Nana needs quality education. He should with all humility take lessons from your kofi's brilliant reaction to his porous and dishonest piece.
These are the people you really understand them not those uneducated like Asiedu Nketia and co. Well said for describing out the details concerning whether the president can or not be sued. Infact i wish you come out and expl ...
read full comment
Good job. Well done. Thank you.
I think this article has been well explained. I can't seem to understand the fuss people are making on the airwaves. Let us leave it to the supreme court to decide. It appears like every one in Ghana is a lawyer now, yet when ...
read full comment
You don't know what you are talking about. who brought this case to court of public opinion? Definitely the NPP! Their motive was to bring the lawyer in Guardians, why complain now. Who told u NPP spokesmen aren't on radio de ...
read full comment
You have done well by this article. Your point is well made and understood.
Well written substantive narrative.John Ndebuguri is merely posturing for a potential cabinet position.He and others committed atrocities against Ghanaians during the Rawlings era.He lacks depth and he is ill- equipped for a ...
read full comment
Too many bogus english words signifying nothing. Yes we know even God can be sued. Anybody on earth can be sued by any fool or idiot but it is just a waste of our precious time because it will be thrown out like gabbage. play ...
read full comment
ODIYIFO, I DONT SEE TOO MANY BOGUS ENGLISH IN THE ARTICLE. THIS IS A WELL WRITTEN AND INFORMATIVE. IT MAKES IT CLEAR WHAT NDC LAWYERS HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO ARTICULATE. NO WONDER THEY HAVE BEEN LOSING CASES AT THE COURTS. LIK ...
read full comment
1. Writer clearly doesn't know how to make the verb forms agree with their subjects. Once can be overlooked but not several times.
2. He doesn't know the difference between "been" and "being".
3. Very terrible punctuat ...
read full comment
Legal language differs in many aspects. There is nothing wrong with article. You're just astonished. The article exposes the NDC.
Does legal language allow you to say
There are issues which needs clarification...
Or
It is the contest which is been disputed.
and many more...
Mind you, I didn't say there was something wrong with the content ...
read full comment
Aryeetey's exchange with Nana Akwah and Kirk Morris is an interesting one on Writing skills.
I'll give this one to Aryeetey. He makes a good point. However, he must accept that many of us come here rushing to make a poin ...
read full comment
... certain mistakes are not just a matter of rushing through and not having time to proofread. If you make a certain type of mistake three or four times in a short piece, then it's no longer a mistake which is the result of ...
read full comment
From his response bellow to Aryeetey, the writer still hasn't realised his mistakes. It's not due to no time to proofread. He simply does not know that point of grammar!
Aryeetey, I do not write in passive terms.
If your subject is in the singular, the verb form must also be in the singular. This has nothing to do with passive/active. Your irregular punctuations leave certain clauses to be read as full sentences. That has nothing to d ...
read full comment
NDC LAWYERS ARE RADIO LAWYERS
Why do you bastardise the actions of your political opponents by calling them propagandists. This is the same mistake you made to lose the election. If i were you I would listen to them very well before making any comment. Mi ...
read full comment
If a president steals an election he can be sued on that. He cannot steal elections, and go free and say I cannot be sued. This is a recipe for dictatorship. The constitution does not allow that. The courts are a check on thi ...
read full comment
Nobody is calling the NDC PROPAGANDISTS.NDC is the only political party in Ghana that has the position of PROPAGANDA SECRETARY in their party.
PROPAGANDA IS DEFINED as 1. Information,ideas,rumours deliberately sp ...
read full comment
Read the above!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please give us a break,go to court and
leave us alone.Thank you.
I am sorry to say you have not provided any intellectually stimulating arguments. This article is neither informative nor challenging for me. I am sorry. Please provide something better, however controversial.
Paul Amuna's comments look very strange. Nana is made a very intellectually stimulating and educative contribution this discussion. For an uninformed person like Paul Amuna to accuse Nana of providing uninformative discussion ...
read full comment
You are absolutely entitled to your opinions which I respect. I am also sure I am not the only one who sees the serious weaknesses in this opinion posting. I have also read from other experts on this subject and still am of t ...
read full comment
Nana, provided skewed and one of the most intellectual dishonest piece that I have ever come across. Article 57 (5) of the 1992 that gives absolute immunity to a sitting President from any civil or criminal prosecution while ...
read full comment
Anyone can say that it is good or bad! Give us your stated opinions!
Akadu my humble opinion is that interpretation of the law or the constitutional instruments in this case is not always clear cut. The best approach to interpreting articles in any law is the neutral appraoch and basing all ar ...
read full comment
very good intellectual work. a must read. ndc take note
Do you want to say that those whom you think are only dwelling on Article 57(5) did not read wide to know that there exists Article 57(4)? Continue to tickle yourself and be happy but finally you will laugh at the wrong side ...
read full comment
This is Google definition of without prejudice which takes away the intellectual analysis.Just restating and copying definition does not make tour write up intellectually stimulating.These are things we already no but still ...
read full comment
when I first read that the President could not be sued, a plethora scenarios rushed to my mind, each increasingly deepening my doubt that the President is 100% insulated from Suits.
Thanks for your contributions. They help ...
read full comment
If a President commits a murder as a citizen while is President according the Article 57(5) he cannot be prosecuted. This article gives any sitting President absolute personal immunity from prosecution in any court on any c ...
read full comment
The author is wrong in his analysis contextually and logically Even in Ghana, the framers of our so-called constitution knew then and holds true today is Ghanaians have the affinity for tribal loyalties above the laws of the ...
read full comment
Just to add that even that is outside the scope of the courts since impeachment can only take place in Parliament.
Quote ====> "The Courts do not operate; I say do not operate on public opinions and perceptions."
So your opinion is just a "waste"!
Mr. Akwah, please read this argument well and clarify:"The NPP is not suing President John Dramani Mahama. The Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo, Presidential Candidate/NPP has petitioned the Supreme Court on elections results invo ...
read full comment
Will the supreme court issue an injunction to stop the inauguration? It seems to me that's the right course of action.
This ndc left wing intellectuals can do a hatchet job.They have accosted the unfortunate npp lawyer who is trying his hands on academic exercise,and have comprehensively demolished him.He has been tackled on his grammar,acade ...
read full comment
Thanks for making light as to what is confronting the people of Ghana.
May the righteous be rewarded by the Almighty God at the end of it all.
I do believe what has happened with the election is of God, that the wicked may ...
read full comment
high Sophistry won't help the NPP. President Mahama enters the courtroom, first as the incumbent President of Ghana. The president is not contesting for any election so why are you calling him candidate mahama? NPP Lawyer ban ...
read full comment
You set out nicely to educate the public which i personally appreciated but you ended up being very patisan; very unfortunate.
The Constitutional Provisions mentioned in your article are reproduced in FULL below to facilitate my little opinion on the issue you discussed:
Article 2
This Constitution shall be the supreme law of Ghana and any other ...
read full comment
Akwah, thank you for your great piece. Please ignore those who are chastising you. Any person who has shown interest in the ongoing legal challenge will agree with you. But, please rewrite your piece by making it more substan ...
read full comment
Whether the President can be sued or not, will soon be determined after the Supreme Court's decision on this ongoing saga between NPP and NDC regarding the just ended elections.
Just wait calmly and see what happens. You w ...
read full comment
LEAVE IT TO SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE AND STOP THIS PUBLIC OPINION JUDGEMENT
The presidentcy, parliament, and the supreme court are equally separate--but equal branches of government. However, the president has the trump card--because he can initiate procedures to impeach the justices.
Plus, the c ...
read full comment
Indeed we agree the President is sueable but not under this circumstance. People voted for him. Who erred? The person whom the people voted for most or less? This is common sense even a child in the mothers womb understand.TH ...
read full comment