12

Read Comments Comments (12)

• Akadu Mensema 13 years ago

  We have some fine minds!

  We have some fine minds!

  reply
• A GERSIS 13 years ago

  GVYB TV
  
  A Gersis reporting
  
  Fellow Ghanaians
  
  Akadu is a cocotte. She hates pretty Ghanaian Jews. This is the reason for her anger. She is also a bovine on the ranch!
  
  ANTONIO GERSIS
  PLAZA ONE
  DALLAS

  GVYB TV
  
  A Gersis reporting
  
  Fellow Ghanaians
  
  Akadu is a cocotte. She hates pretty Ghanaian Jews. This is the reason for her anger. She is also a bovine on the ranch!
  
  ANTONIO GERSIS
  PLAZA ONE
  DALLAS

  reply
• Akadu Mensema 13 years ago

  Please, seek mental health to help your libido so that we can get it on!

  Please, seek mental health to help your libido so that we can get it on!

  reply
• Mr. Kelvin Kanga 13 years ago

  I have observed you for quite a long time now and I just realized that, you are bias, ethnocentric, tribal bigot, not as eloquent as you want readers to believe. Any article written in favor of NPP is Brilliant and Insightful ...
  read full comment

  I have observed you for quite a long time now and I just realized that, you are bias, ethnocentric, tribal bigot, not as eloquent as you want readers to believe. Any article written in favor of NPP is Brilliant and Insightful but, when it favors NDC you attack the author with no reservation. this is 2013 REPENT!!

  reply
• Akadu Mensema 13 years ago

  Am I the only one that you have observed here who is "bias, ethnocentric, tribal bigot, not as eloquent as you want readers to believe." You must be stupidly blind!
  What about those who call others monkeys, dwarfs, baboons, ...
  read full comment

  Am I the only one that you have observed here who is "bias, ethnocentric, tribal bigot, not as eloquent as you want readers to believe." You must be stupidly blind!
  What about those who call others monkeys, dwarfs, baboons, shoeshine boys, etc.

  reply
• Paul Amuna 13 years ago

  Akadu, I happen to agree with you here that James has written a good piece. The key point though is in ONLY one paragraph, the last but one.

  Akadu, I happen to agree with you here that James has written a good piece. The key point though is in ONLY one paragraph, the last but one.

  reply
• Kwadwo 13 years ago

  You have a bright future as a lawyer if you are currently a law student, your analysis is more insightful than Professor Kuruk's. good job.

  You have a bright future as a lawyer if you are currently a law student, your analysis is more insightful than Professor Kuruk's. good job.

  reply
• NANA KUFUOR 13 years ago

  Fellow Ghanaians, let us analyze the performance of these two main political parties in this country. NDC’s philosophy is “dzie wo fie asem”. In opposition they allowed the Kufuor regime to loot the Ghana government for ...
  read full comment

  Fellow Ghanaians, let us analyze the performance of these two main political parties in this country. NDC’s philosophy is “dzie wo fie asem”. In opposition they allowed the Kufuor regime to loot the Ghana government for eight good years. From cash (Kwadwo Mpiani), bungalow (Jake obetsebi-Lamptey), cooking pot (Sekyi-Hughes) etc….. In the case of NPP, they oppose everything good or bad, from, Chinese loan, judgment debts and even the inauguration of President Mahatma. This enabled the NDC to always be on their toes for whatever they do. From this observation, we all conclude that the NPP are better in opposition than NDC. Fellow Ghanaians, let us ensure that NPP remains in opposition for another thirty years.

  reply
• YAW DONKOR 13 years ago

  AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE 07:12:2012 ELECTION, JOHN DRAMANI (MAHAMA) BECAME THE PRESIDENT OF GHANA AS KNOWN BY THE WHOLE WORLD. WITH, THIS, IT IS MY BELIEF THAT IF YOUR FACTS ON ARTICLE 57(4)ARE DEVELOPED TO THE NATIONAL ...
  read full comment

  AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE 07:12:2012 ELECTION, JOHN DRAMANI (MAHAMA) BECAME THE PRESIDENT OF GHANA AS KNOWN BY THE WHOLE WORLD. WITH, THIS, IT IS MY BELIEF THAT IF YOUR FACTS ON ARTICLE 57(4)ARE DEVELOPED TO THE NATIONAL LEVEL, YOU WILL BE CAPABLE TO PUT OUT THE BURNING FIRE BEFOR IT GETS TO FLAMES

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 13 years ago

  James, well done for your analysis but you erred on the interpretation and application of "prerogative writs". In fact, prerogative writs do not mean that the President can be sued in his personal capacity whilst in office. T ...
  read full comment

  James, well done for your analysis but you erred on the interpretation and application of "prerogative writs". In fact, prerogative writs do not mean that the President can be sued in his personal capacity whilst in office. They are rather more about the Presidency and the office holder being subject to the authority of the Constitution through the powers of the Legislature and the Judiciary which by themselves emanates from the Constitution. For example, in serious offences committed by the President, it will enable the Legislature to put the President on trial leading to his impeachment or a special prosector being appointed to investigate the President. In the event of any such prerogative writs being applied the appropriate route will be to make the President the respondent. However, in other prerogative writs cases not involving the Legislature but the Judiciary, it is more appropriate to make the Presidency, the state or the Attorney General and not the officer holder personally liable.
  
  If it is true that former President Rawlings was made a respondent in a case involving the performance of his duties (the selection of a District Chief Executive) then that was unconstitutional.
  
  Regrading the question you posed at the end of your article, whether President could have sued had Nana Akufo Addo being declared the winner 2012 Presidential Election, the answer is yes. This is because the Constitution also gives the President prerogative rights so he could exercised his prerogative rights to go to court in his personal capacity to seek redress. In the same way, though the President cannot be sued personally whilst in office, he can use his prerogative rights to waive his immunity from prosecution and defend himself and I think that is what he intends to do in the NPP petition at the SC, instead of going to the SC to say that he cannot be sued personally whilst in office.

  reply
• Paul Amuna 13 years ago

  James, you provide a good thesis although in my view, most of the precedents you cite are irrelevant to the current circumstances. Your critical point however is in the last but one paragraph where you pose a very personal qu ...
  read full comment

  James, you provide a good thesis although in my view, most of the precedents you cite are irrelevant to the current circumstances. Your critical point however is in the last but one paragraph where you pose a very personal question which to me is at thwart of the matter. WOULD CANDIDATE MAHAMA HAVE SUED CANDIDATE ADDO IF THE ROLES WERE REVERSED? This to me is a very practical, sensible and human-faced question which brings the matter down to the issue of grievance. It also poses the question, can a sitting president sue others?
  
  If candidate MAHAMA would have sued to seek redress as a CITIZEN, then my humble opinion is that Candidate Addo should also be able to do the same. My problem is this: if that is the case, why in the name of God are others attached as appendages I.e. Bawumia and Obetsebi-Lamptey those turning it into a PARTY V. PARTY ISSUE and polarising the country?

  reply
• Nana Yaw III 13 years ago

  The question that ought to be asked is for what offence has the president been sued? The 3 leaders of the NPP (the Petitioners) petitioned the Supreme Court (SC) and made John Dramani Mahama 1st Respondent and the Electoral ...
  read full comment

  The question that ought to be asked is for what offence has the president been sued? The 3 leaders of the NPP (the Petitioners) petitioned the Supreme Court (SC) and made John Dramani Mahama 1st Respondent and the Electoral Commission (EC) 2nd Respondent. Thanks to the Daily Guide, the whole petition is online in pdf format and anyone who so desires can download and read it for as many times as s/he likes.
  
  I have taken time to read the petition over and over and can assure you that besides being made the 1st Respondent, there is not a single accusation or allegation levelled against John Dramani Mahama in the 3-paged petition. So the question that comes to mind is: why has he been made a respondent?
  
  All the accusations and allegations were levelled against the acts and omission of the EC. Surprisingly, after spending hours and days and weeks demonising and vilifying the chairman of the EC the petitioners did not find it necessary to make Dr. Afari Gyan a respondent in their writ. People are sued in court for an act or omission, so I ask again why is the interest in whether or not the President can be sued?
  
  The arguments you made using articles 2, 54, and 55 of the constitution are very good ones if the question was just whether or not the president can be sued. And as you rightly put it article 54 gives room for suing the president if some acts, inactions or omissions of his, in performing his duties, are found to have been in violation of the laws. But being declared the winner of an election by the constitutional body authorised to do so (EC) has nothing to do with an act, inaction, omission, or any other whatever, undertaken by the President. So if he has not done anything why sue him (or better stated, why make him a respondent?).
  
  To answer your rounding-up question, YES, John Dramani Mahama (preferably in the name of the NDC) could have sued if he found something wrong with the results, but the legal person to sue would have been the EC, and NOT Nana Addo, unless of course he (Mahama) found enough reason to accuse Nana Addo to have been involved in illegally influencing his (Mahama’s) loss.

  reply