Kofi, you have provided probably the clearest insight yet, on the frequently asked quit ions (FAQs) about the constitutionality of the proceedings here.and I thank you for answering mot of my own questions. I can't wait to re ... read full comment
Kofi, you have provided probably the clearest insight yet, on the frequently asked quit ions (FAQs) about the constitutionality of the proceedings here.and I thank you for answering mot of my own questions. I can't wait to read your next opinion piece. I also admire your non-partisan approach whi h has something knit for everyone. Indeed this is the type of approach one would expect on a forum like this.
This article is most highly recommended to all well meaning readers.
KOLA ,LONDON PROPER 11 years ago
--------------------------------------
I have always admired Ex-President as a true Elder Statesman and if media reports are true that he will attend the inauguration of President Mahama, as a former Head of State, then, he ... read full comment
--------------------------------------
I have always admired Ex-President as a true Elder Statesman and if media reports are true that he will attend the inauguration of President Mahama, as a former Head of State, then, he has not disappointed me. He has shown that despite his reservations about the December Presidential Election result, he puts nation before party and has a firm belief in the Constitution and respects the rule of law. What a true patriot?
------------------------------------
Well said Kofi Atta from above but don't cowed into thinking that it is all the wish for Kuffuor to attend the investiture of John Mahama as the president.
Kuffuor has no option than to attend to save face. If he had his way, he would have towed the line of his Party members to cause mayhem in Ghana but because Kuffuor knows that the world is watching, he has no option than to attend to save face period.
Well explained article, without prejudice of the petition, the NPP if they understands and respects the 1992 constitution then they better attend the inauguration of John Mahama as the President of Ghana and wait for the SC to decide thereafter.
Also from the explanation in this article, it is crystal clear that the NPP has no choice than to attend, boycotting is therefore unconstitutional and we have the Police and the Soldiers to tame anyone who so disturbs the peace of Ghanaians through any means, either demonstration or otherwise.
Thank you for explanation, Mr Kofi Atta however know that Koffuor has no choice.
KOLA ,LONDON PROPER 11 years ago
don't be cowed
don't be cowed
Nana 11 years ago
quo warranto has been abolished for over 50 years now.
quo warranto has been abolished for over 50 years now.
Nsem fon Ahi 11 years ago
The conclusion "I am of the view that the NPP petition has brought into public domain the level of irregularities and or administrative incompetence within the electoral processes that might have characterised past elections ... read full comment
The conclusion "I am of the view that the NPP petition has brought into public domain the level of irregularities and or administrative incompetence within the electoral processes that might have characterised past elections without notice" Does that mean the 2000 and 2004 elections that NPP won was full of irregularities? By the way has there been a perfect elections in the world? I don't think so not even in USA. The way Ghanaians has been praised all over the world for the way we conduct our elections, today this party that always discredit anything Ghanaian is at it again.
I believe the action of NPP blaming the NDC for rigging the elections anytime they lost makes the NDC looks smart and brilliant. If 1992 NPP accused the NDC of rigging elections and in 2012 this same party comes back to accuse the NDC for rigging elections then NPP looks like a dummy while the NDC looks smart. How can a political party sit down for two decades complaining and not doing anything? This is why I am saying by the utterances of the NPP, the NDC is smart and intelligent group of people. If the NPP is crying foul just to attract sympathy then their crying foul is unforntunate it makes the NPP looks stupid.
GOAHEAD 11 years ago
NPP ARE SORE LOSERS
NPP ARE SORE LOSERS
Paul Amuna 11 years ago
Oh, so you agree that his party is "CAUSING MAYHEM IN GHANA" by their actions and attitude. Too bad isn't? Which is better in your view?
Oh, so you agree that his party is "CAUSING MAYHEM IN GHANA" by their actions and attitude. Too bad isn't? Which is better in your view?
KAB 11 years ago
Kofi, this a good attempt though it is largely misconceived in several instances.
First, please be advised that Quo warranto is obsolescent and has been abolished in almost every common law jurisdiction and Allotey-Okai di ... read full comment
Kofi, this a good attempt though it is largely misconceived in several instances.
First, please be advised that Quo warranto is obsolescent and has been abolished in almost every common law jurisdiction and Allotey-Okai did not err in not mentioning it as a type of prerogative writ.
Second, your view that the Presidential Election Petitions constitutional instrument conflicts with The Constitution is also fundamentally misconceived. The person whose election is being challenged should be made the First Respondent otherwise the petition fails. dont ask me why. that is the law. This does NOT conflict with Article 57[4] and [5] at all. An election petetion is a prerogative writ, in lay terms it is an petition for a review of the constitutionality of the election of Mahama. It is a judicial review of the legality of his election. Judicial review[prerogative writs] is NOT a civil or criminal proceeding and that Mahama has no immunity from the same or at all and the Election Petition constutional instrument does conflict with the constitution in any way or at all. Where did you and Prof Kuruk read your law?
C.Y. ANDY-K 11 years ago
Kofi,
That was a fast one, just like mine too.:-)
Thanks for the mention but you made a mistake in quoting my piece's title, "The President CANNOT be Sued." I wrote it without reading many of the writers you mentioned t ... read full comment
Kofi,
That was a fast one, just like mine too.:-)
Thanks for the mention but you made a mistake in quoting my piece's title, "The President CANNOT be Sued." I wrote it without reading many of the writers you mentioned too. I just read the 2 series of Prof. Kuruk and they have even more affirmed my views on the incompetence of the case proper, which I did not comment on beyond saying that, and the immunity enjoyed by the President.
Since writing my own piece, it has become clearer to me that the CI 78 upon which the NPP based its action on in joining the President to the suit is the heavily flawed and trouble-some, NPP boycotted constitutional instrument which set up the extra 45 constituencies. I was under the impression action was based on an actual const'nal contradiction unearthed by the NPP (the purported prerogative writs?), thus my analysis was an intra-const'nal or internal one of how immunity granted to a President, Prime Minister, diplomats, etc., should be interpreted in conformity with best practice the world over. It is thus a "criterion analysis," as I think the book-long people call it. That makes it the more cogent, I believe.
I haven't examined the debate from the "prerogative writs" advocates but accept the views of those who say, they don't circumvent the immunity of the Presidency but just allow for challenging the actions of the Executive and agents of the President appropriately, as you specified.
If indeed it is a contradiction between a provision of the Constitution and a legislative/ const'nal instrument of Parliament, then I am lost for words why any lawyer worth his/her salt and/or knows his/her onions well, can argue that such a legislation takes precedence over a const'nal provision? I wouldn't have wasted my time at all on such a "foolish case". Should be thrown out on first hearing if the lawyers of the President makes the appropriate submission.
The legal remedies you mentioned, such as Habeas Corpus (Produce the body)and Mandamus, are taught to even O'L Government students unless you had a lousy Govt Teacher, (Hamid doesn't like this but my students were making 1, even in Nigeria where I introduced the teaching of Govt in a school), not to mention graduates in Political Science, so the lawyers don't have a monopoly over what is law or lawful.
Of course, I am well versed in K.C. Wheare's classic, "Constitutions", from the pol. science reading list, and know that one way consts. change is through judicial interpretation [of ambiguous or vague clauses or new meanings for terms, concepts, areas not covered, etc]. So for instance, once Blacks in the US are also recognised as "men", no longer chattel to be sold and owned, they become covered by the phrase "all men are created equal..." and the Civil Rights law was passed to redress the centuries old discrimination against them. My argument is thus based on that principle and in recognition of a world wide convention or law, even if am ambiguity exists in the Const., which is not the case. It is thus clear to me that the President is indeed immune, and must not open the Pandora Box of waving his immunity as some have suggested or hinted, and the SC must not be cajoled or tempted to entertain such a lawsuit against the President and setting a very bad precedence in our const'nal development. Imagine a vulture fund suing and "impounding" our President on a visit to say Argentina, in the future, based on the SC decision in Ghana years back! They must rule that CI 78 contravenes the Const'nal Art. 57 (5), and our Presidents now and in the future when the oil is exhausted and we are still heavily indebted are immune to prosecution. Period!
Andy-K
Lol 11 years ago
Thanks.
Thanks.
Dr. SAS, Attorney at Law 11 years ago
My brother Andy,
1. You should ask yourself how the president is harmed by entering an appearance and defense in the instant case, instead of sticking to the superficial narrative that the president cannot be sued.
2. You s ... read full comment
My brother Andy,
1. You should ask yourself how the president is harmed by entering an appearance and defense in the instant case, instead of sticking to the superficial narrative that the president cannot be sued.
2. You should consider the possibility that the relevant constitutional provisions were fully contemplated before the creation of CI 78.
3. For an understanding of the superiority of CI 78, you may apprise yourself of a theory of statutory interpretation called "Generalia specialibus non derogant."
The foregoing will afford you the opportunity for a more lucid perspective.As it is, all your analyses are stuck in one gear.
Blessings 11 years ago
"2. You should consider the possibility that the relevant constitutional provisions were fully contemplated before the creation of CI 78."
If, your above assertion is true, in that all the "relevant constitutional provisio ... read full comment
"2. You should consider the possibility that the relevant constitutional provisions were fully contemplated before the creation of CI 78."
If, your above assertion is true, in that all the "relevant constitutional provisions were fully contemplated", then why were eligible voters ( those who were listed on the register, yet the biometrics could not verify them), turned away from exercising their constitutionally mandated right to choose their president, at least on the 7th voting exercise?
Why was presumably "no verification, no vote", implemented without any contigency planning that inherent in a computer equipment or software ( assumption of risk), is its ability to fail when least expected?
Note that many of those who were not able to be verified included silly reasons given such as having cuts on their hands due to pounding fufu, dirty hands, and other silly reasons..REALLY? WOW!... I also added that changes in blood sugar of diabetics could explain why the biometric equipment could not verify them..
Note also that CI 78 may have violated a case called AKPALU v. EC, where the complainant was deny the right to vote in a former election albeit having his ID...
Note also that all the possible multiple registrants(some 30,000+) according to the EC were effectively purged from the register prior to the voting exercises, hence, anyone who appeared on the official register on voting day and had a valid ID should have been allowed to vote without being turned away.. These class of persons were UNJUSTLY disenfrancished- I wonder if they returned to vote the next day!
And to think that Akuffo Addo is seeking to invalidate or disenfrancised 1.4M more voters just to fufil his insatiable quest to become president?
Blessings 11 years ago
Complainant was DENIED
Complainant was DENIED
Dr. SAS, Attorney at Law 11 years ago
Dear Blessings,
We are passing ships....
My response is in reference to the idea that the president cannot be a respondent in the NPP suit. I think the CI 78 makes it clear that he will be a respondent. And my argument is t ... read full comment
Dear Blessings,
We are passing ships....
My response is in reference to the idea that the president cannot be a respondent in the NPP suit. I think the CI 78 makes it clear that he will be a respondent. And my argument is that those that framed the rule must have contemplated the constitutional rule that makes the president immune to suit and yet found CI 78 not to be in conflict with the constitutional bar.
If you want my comment on the merits of the NPP suit, that is for another debate.
Blessings 11 years ago
"If you want my comment on the merits of the NPP suit, that is for another debate" Dr. SAS..
YES, all the forumners would welcome your "DOCTORIAL" and SCHOLARSTIC dissectation of the issues at bar regarding Nana Addo et al ... read full comment
"If you want my comment on the merits of the NPP suit, that is for another debate" Dr. SAS..
YES, all the forumners would welcome your "DOCTORIAL" and SCHOLARSTIC dissectation of the issues at bar regarding Nana Addo et all's filed petition at Ghana's SC!
Hope the "profession" is treating you well.. It is "sheer madness" out there..lol..
Dr. SAS, Attorney at Law 11 years ago
I think the NPP suit has no merit. It will be thrown out by the SC.
But the case can help improve our electoral system and hence our democracy.
I speak as a lawyer and a staunch supporter of NPP.
I think the NPP suit has no merit. It will be thrown out by the SC.
But the case can help improve our electoral system and hence our democracy.
I speak as a lawyer and a staunch supporter of NPP.
C.Y. ANDY-K 11 years ago
Doc,
I've examined the principle thus referred to by you and found it in support of my stance.
For the sake of other readers, I've quoted a bit of what's out there.
"The rule is generalia specialibus non derogant. T ... read full comment
Doc,
I've examined the principle thus referred to by you and found it in support of my stance.
For the sake of other readers, I've quoted a bit of what's out there.
"The rule is generalia specialibus non derogant. The general principle to be applied ... to the construction of acts of Parliament is that a general act is not to be construed to repeal a previous particular act, unless there is some express reference to the previous legislation on the subject, or unless there is a necessary inconsistency in the two acts standing together. And the reason is ... that the legislature having had its attention directed to a special subject, and having observed all the circumstances of the case and provided for them, does not intend by a general enactment afterwards to derogate from its own act when it makes no special mention of its intention so to do...."
Unquote.
In simple English, Parliament cannot even be allowed to pass another law which contradicts or, in practice, repeals a previous special act, unless reference was explicitly made to that special act that it was being amended in such and such manner.
Now, we've an act of Parliament which attempts to amend or contradict with the Const, a far superior body of laws, without specifically referring to the Const'nal clause/s to be amended, and you are suggesting that the MPs that botched up with the CI 78 might've thought or got in their minds the immunity Article when botching up, and so we should accept that the Const was amended by a simple majority of incompetent MPS?!
I am sorry, this argument falls flat on its face. Not worth further consideration.
Glad to read you in another post that the case has no merit. Indeed, it is incompetent as it stands, as I had said before. Please advise your NPP colleagues to stop making fools of themselves. As for me, I am sick and tired of the idiots and morons, besides being crooks and charlatans, trying to rule us for quite a long while now. Yes, even under Nkrumah's CPP, and I am a pro-Nkrumaist!
Andy-K
Dr. SAS, Attorney at Law 11 years ago
Good job Andy!
But I would advise you to scrutinize the construct further, looking at it from several perspectives to see how it can be read to mean that the two statutes can be concurrently applied with good results. CI 78 ... read full comment
Good job Andy!
But I would advise you to scrutinize the construct further, looking at it from several perspectives to see how it can be read to mean that the two statutes can be concurrently applied with good results. CI 78 is not necessarily inconsistent with any constitutional provision.
Look at it this way: How do you suppose that the president who has the highest stake in this matter should be left out of the suit? Should the outcome go against him, will you expect him to obey a court that ruled against him when he was virtually tried in absentia?
Even if the president was not made a respondent, he should, as a good legal strategy, implead himself, just as the NDC is seeking to do.
In any case, this discussion is moot because you must have heard that the president has already entered an appearance without questioning the court's jurisdiction. Thus the legal team of the president appear smarter than General Mosquito and his cohorts!
C.Y. ANDY-K 11 years ago
Doc SAS,
Indeed, I expect the President to respect the decision of the SC even if not represented, just as the Executive or the President must respect any decisions of the Executive challenged under Habeas Corpus, mandamus ... read full comment
Doc SAS,
Indeed, I expect the President to respect the decision of the SC even if not represented, just as the Executive or the President must respect any decisions of the Executive challenged under Habeas Corpus, mandamus, etc.
I indeed read various applications of that principle and it is more than clear to me that the CI in qs cannot take precedence over the Const'nal provision pf immunity to the President, and it'd be a serious aberration if allowed to.
The President's lawyers haven't entered a plea yet, so we can't conclude that this discussion is a moot one. As we are all agreed, they must go to the SC, even if to make only a case ofimmunity for the President, which some of us are pushing for. They may decide to show-boat and make mockery of the whole legal system in a bid to show that they are better legal luminaries than the NPP team, since the case itself is clearly incompetent and lacks merit, and so they are sure of winning this time around. That'll be just a political circus in the SC, in line with the frivolous mission the NPP has embarked upon. I hope the Justices of the SC have enough integrity and respect for the posts they occupy and throw all of them out as the clowns that they are!
As a die-hard pro-Nkrumaist, I really don't care for either of them anyway.
Andy-K
Wiafe 11 years ago
The presidency, the legislature, and the judiciary are equal branches of government. So in this case, the supreme court has to be careful it doesn't set a bad precedent.
Otherwise, what stops the presidency from meddling ... read full comment
The presidency, the legislature, and the judiciary are equal branches of government. So in this case, the supreme court has to be careful it doesn't set a bad precedent.
Otherwise, what stops the presidency from meddling in the removal of justices, underfunding the judiciary, refusing to implememnt judicial decisions, etc.etc.
The 3 branches are supposed to work together for the good of the country. The 3 branches cannot work against one another.
Once Mahama is inaugurated--he should be allowed to serve his 4 years. The supreme court can rule any way they want--but the presidency and the legislature can also mess up the judiciary. We have to stay away from vengeance politics.
The recent case of Obamacare in the US is instructive. Clearly, the court could have ruled it unconstitutional--but the Chief Justice that such a ruling will "poison" the country and reduce the legitimacy of the supreme court. So the Chief Justice "manufactured" a principle to rule in favor of Obamacare.
The rule of law alone is not enough to create and sustain a society. The law is not sufficient. Human law is deficient. Before the constitution, the peoples of Ghana existed and prosepred under several arrangements.
The supposedly "harm" suffered by Akuffo Addo (one person) is not enough basis to destabilize the country and set processes that will be more "harmful" to the country (the many) as a whole.
Lol 11 years ago
based on the fw versu the majority argument, does this mean that if less than half of the country is aggrieved, there should not be a corrction?
based on the fw versu the majority argument, does this mean that if less than half of the country is aggrieved, there should not be a corrction?
Kwadwo 11 years ago
Kofi, this is a good effort. Attorney Sam Okudzeto gave a brilliant analysis on PM Express with Stephen Anti this week. The President was properly made a party in this election challenge Petition. As a practical matter, there ... read full comment
Kofi, this is a good effort. Attorney Sam Okudzeto gave a brilliant analysis on PM Express with Stephen Anti this week. The President was properly made a party in this election challenge Petition. As a practical matter, there is no other way around it as his presidency is directly at stake. I don't think Mahama will even invoke presidential immunity as a defense because the SC can decide the merits of the case with the Electoral Commision as the a sole respondent . This is a chance Mahama will not take. He must be in court and vigrously defend the case.
MAT 11 years ago
YOU ADMIT YOU ARE NOT A LAWYER, SO WHY ARE YOU POKING YOUR NOSES INTO MATTERS WHICH ARE OUT OF YOUR RANGE? YOU SEE, BY READING LAW BOOKS AS A LEISURE WILL NOT MAKE ONE A LAWYER,LIKEWISE, YOU CANNOT BECOME A MEDICAL EXPERT JUS ... read full comment
YOU ADMIT YOU ARE NOT A LAWYER, SO WHY ARE YOU POKING YOUR NOSES INTO MATTERS WHICH ARE OUT OF YOUR RANGE? YOU SEE, BY READING LAW BOOKS AS A LEISURE WILL NOT MAKE ONE A LAWYER,LIKEWISE, YOU CANNOT BECOME A MEDICAL EXPERT JUST BY READING MEDICAL BOOKS AS A HOBBY. YOU BONE OF CONTENTION TO THE BRILLIANT EXEGESES BY THE TWO ERUDITE LAWYERS DOES NOT HOLD WATER. JUST STICK TO WHAT YOU KNOW BEST!
KOLA ,LONDON PROPER 11 years ago
You are comparing two things here, Law and Medicine with completely different pathways of study.
Reading Law can eventually make one become a Lawyer. And Likewise reading Medical books can also eventually land one to pract ... read full comment
You are comparing two things here, Law and Medicine with completely different pathways of study.
Reading Law can eventually make one become a Lawyer. And Likewise reading Medical books can also eventually land one to practice medicine.
If Kofi Atta has interest to go for it, he can equally become a Lawyer.
CALAMITY MILLS 11 years ago
STUPID DOG,Kofi Atta is not a lawyer,he himself agrees to that.
STUPID DOG,Kofi Atta is not a lawyer,he himself agrees to that.
Pocket Lawyer 11 years ago
For lack of knowledge my people perished.
Kofi who do you want to tell you that NPP has nothing in their concocted cock and bull evidence?
Even though the law is there to protect the sitting president from such action, NDC ... read full comment
For lack of knowledge my people perished.
Kofi who do you want to tell you that NPP has nothing in their concocted cock and bull evidence?
Even though the law is there to protect the sitting president from such action, NDC have join the suit to send a clear message to NPP that it is not going to be them NPP and SC to decorate their cock and bull story for us, hahahahahaha.
If you know law very well just take note of the whole NDC joining the suit. It is going to be a tall order.
NPP case is already dead, you can smell it from Sam Okudjeto and others posturing.
Lol 11 years ago
which part are you arguing against? make your point and let us see the legs tit stands on.
which part are you arguing against? make your point and let us see the legs tit stands on.
NANA KUFUOR 11 years ago
Fellow Ghanaians, let us analyze the performance of the two main political parties in this country. NDC’s philosophy is “dzie wo fie asem”. In opposition they allowed the Kufuor regime to mind its own business. As a res ... read full comment
Fellow Ghanaians, let us analyze the performance of the two main political parties in this country. NDC’s philosophy is “dzie wo fie asem”. In opposition they allowed the Kufuor regime to mind its own business. As a result the NPP looted the Ghana government for eight good years. The fat cats looted the economy from cash (Kwadwo Mpiani), bungalow (Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey), cooking pots (Sekyi-Hughes) etc…..70% of the richest people in Ghana are NPP apparachicks. In the case of NPP, they believe they know better than anybody else and they are the only people who have the divine right to rule Ghana thus they oppose everything NDC does if it is not from the NPP, whether good or bad, from, Chinese loans, judgment debts, appointments and even the inauguration of President Mahama. This enabled the NDC to always be on their toes in whatever they do. From this observation, you can all agree with me that the NPP are better in opposition than NDC. Fellow Ghanaians, let us ensure that NPP remains in opposition for thirty years. After that time NDC will improve everything and NPP will come back and rule Ghana till thy kingdom come.
John Carslake 11 years ago
Nana Kufuor; you say the NDC will improve everything. How is it, when given the chance in 2009, they have improved nothing? The President says 40% of schools under trees removed. He could have said 60% of schools under trees ... read full comment
Nana Kufuor; you say the NDC will improve everything. How is it, when given the chance in 2009, they have improved nothing? The President says 40% of schools under trees removed. He could have said 60% of schools under trees are still there.
The NPP is like the Conservative party in the UK; their basic policies are designed to increase wealth in the country so that the resulting increased tax can increase benefits and development for everyone. In Ghana,why should the wealth creators support the NDC? Money does not come from government, it comes from people and companies.
BOY KOFI 11 years ago
NPP wants the Supreme Court to declare Nana Addo as President of Ghana and this will never ever happen,let me state it clear here.
The essential logic of their petition is for the Supreme Court to remove Prez Mahama from pow ... read full comment
NPP wants the Supreme Court to declare Nana Addo as President of Ghana and this will never ever happen,let me state it clear here.
The essential logic of their petition is for the Supreme Court to remove Prez Mahama from power,like coup d'état,this will only happen when judges come from the Planet Mars.Now listen,the moment Prez Mahama is sworn in and he forms his govt,position his Ambassadors all over the world,I don't see any logic for Supreme Court to remove him.The game is over for NPP,the leaders are just fooling the poor supporters.
KUTXA. Bayone, France 11 years ago
Well done Kofi for this thought provoking piece,straight to the point and written in a language for clearer understanding.If there is one thing for which I however disagreed, it is branding former president Kufour as a true S ... read full comment
Well done Kofi for this thought provoking piece,straight to the point and written in a language for clearer understanding.If there is one thing for which I however disagreed, it is branding former president Kufour as a true Stateman.Well, it is your view and I fully respect it.If Kufour is a true Stateman and have the nation at heart as you sort to potray him, Ghanaians would have heard him called to order,the irate supporters of his party, who went on the rampage killing and maiming innocent Ghanaians.
Kufour was silent on this because,before the elections,he had made so many contraditory statements and incitements which gave backing to the their supporters to do what they did.They did not even spare the media.
What about his attacked on the EC from the very beginning when the latter decided to create more constituencies as allowed by law? Kofi, what is happening in Ghana today is not completely isolated from Kufour´s constructive participations.
Now, he has entangled himself to the point that he doesn´t know where to stand.For sure, he can not stand aloof whiles the NPP fight for survival. What grounds has he to encourage the NPP to go to court whiles he himself has no evidence? In any case, whether he goes to the inauguration or not, the event would take place, and we shall move forward.His refusal or otherwise would not affect anything in this country, except to tell who he really is. Let´s give peace a chance.
Pocket Lawyer 11 years ago
1For lack of knowledge my people perished.
Kofi who do you want to tell you that NPP has nothing in their concocted cock and bull evidence?
Even though the law is there to protect the sitting president from such action, NDC ... read full comment
1For lack of knowledge my people perished.
Kofi who do you want to tell you that NPP has nothing in their concocted cock and bull evidence?
Even though the law is there to protect the sitting president from such action, NDC have join the suit to send a clear message to NPP that it is not going to be them NPP and SC to decorate their cock and bull story for us, hahahahahaha.
If you know law very well just take note of the whole NDC joining the suit. It is going to be a tall order.
NPP case is already dead, you can smell it from Sam Okudjeto and others posturing.
Whatever 11 years ago
In the application law, the supreme law of the Land naturally takes precedence over all other laws in matters of conflict of laws. So when the law expressly states that the president shall not be liable to civil or criminal P ... read full comment
In the application law, the supreme law of the Land naturally takes precedence over all other laws in matters of conflict of laws. So when the law expressly states that the president shall not be liable to civil or criminal PROCEEDINGS in court, any act of parliament, by-laws, case laws, common laws or whatever which counters that is a deviation which is illegal because even those laws are also not above the supreme Law of the Land.
Nyame Ekuma 11 years ago
I am, not a lawyer, bur i will be surprised if the Supreme Court will put President in the box and cross examine OUR PRESIDENT.
We are waiting patiently. The SC shd expose the blindness and deafness of all the party agents ... read full comment
I am, not a lawyer, bur i will be surprised if the Supreme Court will put President in the box and cross examine OUR PRESIDENT.
We are waiting patiently. The SC shd expose the blindness and deafness of all the party agents, the electoral officers, the international community and foreign observers, CODEO and the secirity agents who said the elections were not only free and fair, but transparent and peaceful.
Only the dwarf can see far, cos he has put on high heels
NPP BRAGS FOR NOTHING. WHAT AN INDITEMENT ON ALL OF US
LONTO-BOY 11 years ago
MASSA KOFI, this is very insightful, logical, well-reasoned legal points and political arguments. This case is a historical first in Ghana. And whatever the outcome, it will have political connotation and political impacts.
... read full comment
MASSA KOFI, this is very insightful, logical, well-reasoned legal points and political arguments. This case is a historical first in Ghana. And whatever the outcome, it will have political connotation and political impacts.
At stake is not just Ghana's democracy and claims by NPP against the Electoral Commission and President John Mahama, but NPP's own credibility and political fortunes. Should the Supreme Court's decision favour President John Mahama, it adds humiliation to NPP's electoral defeat. Should the Supreme Court overturn the results in favour of Nana Akufo-Addo, who is going to execute that decision once President Mahama is sworn in by the Chief Justice?
Institutionally, the Supreme Court must ultimately depend on the executive arm of Government [ the Presidency ] for the efficacy of its judgement. My sense is that the Supreme Court will have no choice but to be cognizant of the political context of its decisions, once the same Supreme Court/Chief Justice administers the oath of office for President John Mahama. Once President Mahama assumes the Presidency, it will be interesting to see how NPP's case unfolds in the coming days in Supreme Court.
Blessings 11 years ago
Lonto-Boy,
These are very interesting assertions coming from a "perceived" NPP supporter..It is good to know that many of us will rise above partisan politics and put the Nation Ghana and its overwhelming semi-literate ci ... read full comment
Lonto-Boy,
These are very interesting assertions coming from a "perceived" NPP supporter..It is good to know that many of us will rise above partisan politics and put the Nation Ghana and its overwhelming semi-literate citizens' interest as MORE important than NPP or NDC. There is hope afterall, because not all NPPers have taken a"radical" stance like Ahoofe and co! You and your ilks must shout louder in the coming days, if Akuffo Addo should decide to implement his "all-die-be-die" in full force!
You ought be commended for your comments above; for it lacks political "tainting" and it is really an objective assessment on the current state of Ghana's political environment..
Once Prez Mahama is sworn in for his new term, the case for SC overturning a constitutionally elected president for Akuffo Addo to fufill his insatiable quest for presidential power becomes dimmer, and dimmer,in my opinion!
The SC will have to weigh the ultimate cause to Akuffo/NPP v. the entire 25 million Ghanaian citizenry, not just the supposed 5M which voted for Akuffo Ado/NPP! I perceive the SC's decision will combine law, morality, and public policy..They are the TOP JUDGES in the land and that is what they have SELECTED and PAID to do; and they MUST do it with utmost wisdom, while promoting values go a long way in building a fair and just society!
I hope that all Ghanaians, whether NPP or NDC, will accept the ultimate decision of the SC devoid of resorting to violence and making the country ungovernable.Ghana's upward mobility toward full development is on the line- recently I read on myjoy that Nigeria is begining to lose so much foreign investment because of instability caused by Boko Haram and the likes- it would be such a sad day for all of Ghana's children if that should become the fate of Ghana because someone must win an election at all cost!.. It will just be too bad- thus any acts which seeks to destabilize and move Ghana backwards must be dealth with and curtailed with light speed!
On a side note, NPP vehemently opposed the creation of the 45 newly created constituencies with Prez Kuffuor urging them on; yet NPP won 23 of 45, NDC won 22, and 1 independant emerged!
We hope for the best!
Lol 11 years ago
great work. looking forward to the next part!!!
great work. looking forward to the next part!!!
william 11 years ago
This excellent piece needs to be read with Prof Paul Kuruk's earlier piece on same subject.The two together provide us lay people with insights to understanding what is @play. Kofi and Paul, come again when necessary . Thanks
This excellent piece needs to be read with Prof Paul Kuruk's earlier piece on same subject.The two together provide us lay people with insights to understanding what is @play. Kofi and Paul, come again when necessary . Thanks
Lol 11 years ago
Proff Kurukshould consider some public lectures after the court case. national commision on civic education should use him as a resource person to help the nation. such education should be on-going to help people when crises ... read full comment
Proff Kurukshould consider some public lectures after the court case. national commision on civic education should use him as a resource person to help the nation. such education should be on-going to help people when crises arise.
Bomfaboy 11 years ago
I do not think there is any conflict here, and that the petitioners were right in citing CANDIDATE Mahama in the case. Taking part in an election is not a duty of the presidency. If we argue that the president was doing his c ... read full comment
I do not think there is any conflict here, and that the petitioners were right in citing CANDIDATE Mahama in the case. Taking part in an election is not a duty of the presidency. If we argue that the president was doing his constitutional duty by seeking to be elected, then are we also saying all those candidates who participated are presidents? If that is no then until a person is elected and sworn into office he or she cannot claim immunity in electoral matters. The president continue to be president till Midnight 6th January. Many are just reasoning like Kwasi Pratt, who after all the years as a journalist has not learned any thing sensible, and only blow hot air so his bread can be buttered.
Blessings 11 years ago
Absolute immunity given to one individual because he is the leader or president of a country is simply DANGEROUS to society in a democracy, in my opinion.
I think in a "nutshell", presidential immunities are granted or ava ... read full comment
Absolute immunity given to one individual because he is the leader or president of a country is simply DANGEROUS to society in a democracy, in my opinion.
I think in a "nutshell", presidential immunities are granted or availed such individuals so as not to have "frivilous" lawsuits be brought against them which may impede their constitutionally mandated duties! I think to make such immunities ABSOLUTE is an AFRONT to democratic constitutions in general, which go a long way to assure ALL the citizens of a given country are under the law and NONE is above or perceived to be above the law!
Yes, yes, yes, I know about impeachments, because in my lifetime, I have witnessed the infamous impeachment proceedings of the formidable President Bill Clinton, the 39th. & 40th president of the United States...
Consider this... In the US Supreme Court Case CLINTON v. JONES, the then sitting president Bill Clinton, sought the Supreme Court to overturn an Appeals Court ruling which denied him the use of presidential immunity to get to rid of the Paula Jones's sexual harrasement lawsuit brought against him, while he was the sitting president. Note that the "alledged" offense was committed before he was sworn in as President.
The US SC in that case sought to limit the use of Presidential immunity, barring it as ABSOLUTE- and ruled that such immunity cannot be invoked against PRIVATE LAWSUITS against a sitting president- furthermore, for such an immunity to stand the test, the President must show that allowing such suits to proceed would substantially impede his constitutionally mandated duties..
Thus in the US, presidential immunity is NOT ABSOLUTE for a sitting president- I presume that a sitting president cannot just rape, maim, kill, and not be prosecuted for it, and the law has to wait on him until his term ends? How ridiculous is that? To have a murderer as president because of presidential immunity in a democracy? Please do not cite Rawlings in this case oooh.. He became president in a unique time in Ghana's history! And, I am NOT saying that Rawlings is a murderer or not a murderer, per se!
Therefore, as we await the infamous historic and precedential case brought by Akuffo Addo et all to be decided, my hope is that Ghana's SC will not only clarify that immunity article in its constitution, but seek to LIMMIT it somewhat, if how the clause currently exits, it speaks to ABSOLUTE immunity.If they do limit it, they should cite specific examples where such a clause cannot be invoked by a sitting president..
YES folks, John Mahama is certainly a SITTING president at the time this lawsuit was brought- there should be NO doubt about this at all!
Afterall, in a democracy, the LAW OF THE LAND should be ABOVE all, no one should be above it, or perceived to be above it, if the objective is to build a fair and just society in Ghana!
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 11 years ago
Blessings, I hope you are not inferring from the article that President Mahama has absolute immunity from prosecution whilst still in office. That is not what I said because there is nothing like absolute immunity. The exampl ... read full comment
Blessings, I hope you are not inferring from the article that President Mahama has absolute immunity from prosecution whilst still in office. That is not what I said because there is nothing like absolute immunity. The example of President Bill Clinton having to face a private suit against him whilst in office is different because the very serious nature of the offence and the fact that it happened when he was not president is not applicable to the subject of the article. In fact, you should be aware that had President Bill Clinton committed the act he was sued for whilst in office he would have faced impeachment trial as was the case in the Monica Lewisnky affair which I referred to in the article. So , no President has absolute immunity, otherwise there would never be impeachment trials.
Blessings 11 years ago
..MY COMMENT NEED NOT BE A DIRECT RESPONSE TO THE ARTICLE AT BAR..LOL.
Bro Kofi, I was just making a comment, to hopefully enrich this onging constitutional debate on "Presidential Immunity" while we await the final deci ... read full comment
..MY COMMENT NEED NOT BE A DIRECT RESPONSE TO THE ARTICLE AT BAR..LOL.
Bro Kofi, I was just making a comment, to hopefully enrich this onging constitutional debate on "Presidential Immunity" while we await the final decision from the emminent SC Judges of Ghana regarding Nana's petition!
Thus, my comment came about after having been following the debates and numerous articles at large and not necessarily yours alone!
I attempted to intepret a ruling in support for my position and hoping that the emminent Ghana's SC judges will put the matter at bar to rest for good, as our emminent SC Judges of the US have had to do!
Thanks for your feedback and good article!
DAVID ATUGIYA 11 years ago
The absolute immunity enjoyed by any sitting President from civil or criminal proceedings that some of us talked about since this frevilous petitioned by the NPP, is in reference to Article 74 and 75 (5) of the 1992 constitut ... read full comment
The absolute immunity enjoyed by any sitting President from civil or criminal proceedings that some of us talked about since this frevilous petitioned by the NPP, is in reference to Article 74 and 75 (5) of the 1992 constitution.
KOMAANU 11 years ago
iS THE 'FARTER OF CAMBRIDGE' STILL EXTANT?
The cocoa farms of himself and Akyea Mensah have rip[ened, eh?
Adank is watching them but they don't know! One day they will vomit the money ourt!
iS THE 'FARTER OF CAMBRIDGE' STILL EXTANT?
The cocoa farms of himself and Akyea Mensah have rip[ened, eh?
Adank is watching them but they don't know! One day they will vomit the money ourt!
Kofi, you have provided probably the clearest insight yet, on the frequently asked quit ions (FAQs) about the constitutionality of the proceedings here.and I thank you for answering mot of my own questions. I can't wait to re ...
read full comment
--------------------------------------
I have always admired Ex-President as a true Elder Statesman and if media reports are true that he will attend the inauguration of President Mahama, as a former Head of State, then, he ...
read full comment
don't be cowed
quo warranto has been abolished for over 50 years now.
The conclusion "I am of the view that the NPP petition has brought into public domain the level of irregularities and or administrative incompetence within the electoral processes that might have characterised past elections ...
read full comment
NPP ARE SORE LOSERS
Oh, so you agree that his party is "CAUSING MAYHEM IN GHANA" by their actions and attitude. Too bad isn't? Which is better in your view?
Kofi, this a good attempt though it is largely misconceived in several instances.
First, please be advised that Quo warranto is obsolescent and has been abolished in almost every common law jurisdiction and Allotey-Okai di ...
read full comment
Kofi,
That was a fast one, just like mine too.:-)
Thanks for the mention but you made a mistake in quoting my piece's title, "The President CANNOT be Sued." I wrote it without reading many of the writers you mentioned t ...
read full comment
Thanks.
My brother Andy,
1. You should ask yourself how the president is harmed by entering an appearance and defense in the instant case, instead of sticking to the superficial narrative that the president cannot be sued.
2. You s ...
read full comment
"2. You should consider the possibility that the relevant constitutional provisions were fully contemplated before the creation of CI 78."
If, your above assertion is true, in that all the "relevant constitutional provisio ...
read full comment
Complainant was DENIED
Dear Blessings,
We are passing ships....
My response is in reference to the idea that the president cannot be a respondent in the NPP suit. I think the CI 78 makes it clear that he will be a respondent. And my argument is t ...
read full comment
"If you want my comment on the merits of the NPP suit, that is for another debate" Dr. SAS..
YES, all the forumners would welcome your "DOCTORIAL" and SCHOLARSTIC dissectation of the issues at bar regarding Nana Addo et al ...
read full comment
I think the NPP suit has no merit. It will be thrown out by the SC.
But the case can help improve our electoral system and hence our democracy.
I speak as a lawyer and a staunch supporter of NPP.
Doc,
I've examined the principle thus referred to by you and found it in support of my stance.
For the sake of other readers, I've quoted a bit of what's out there.
"The rule is generalia specialibus non derogant. T ...
read full comment
Good job Andy!
But I would advise you to scrutinize the construct further, looking at it from several perspectives to see how it can be read to mean that the two statutes can be concurrently applied with good results. CI 78 ...
read full comment
Doc SAS,
Indeed, I expect the President to respect the decision of the SC even if not represented, just as the Executive or the President must respect any decisions of the Executive challenged under Habeas Corpus, mandamus ...
read full comment
The presidency, the legislature, and the judiciary are equal branches of government. So in this case, the supreme court has to be careful it doesn't set a bad precedent.
Otherwise, what stops the presidency from meddling ...
read full comment
based on the fw versu the majority argument, does this mean that if less than half of the country is aggrieved, there should not be a corrction?
Kofi, this is a good effort. Attorney Sam Okudzeto gave a brilliant analysis on PM Express with Stephen Anti this week. The President was properly made a party in this election challenge Petition. As a practical matter, there ...
read full comment
YOU ADMIT YOU ARE NOT A LAWYER, SO WHY ARE YOU POKING YOUR NOSES INTO MATTERS WHICH ARE OUT OF YOUR RANGE? YOU SEE, BY READING LAW BOOKS AS A LEISURE WILL NOT MAKE ONE A LAWYER,LIKEWISE, YOU CANNOT BECOME A MEDICAL EXPERT JUS ...
read full comment
You are comparing two things here, Law and Medicine with completely different pathways of study.
Reading Law can eventually make one become a Lawyer. And Likewise reading Medical books can also eventually land one to pract ...
read full comment
STUPID DOG,Kofi Atta is not a lawyer,he himself agrees to that.
For lack of knowledge my people perished.
Kofi who do you want to tell you that NPP has nothing in their concocted cock and bull evidence?
Even though the law is there to protect the sitting president from such action, NDC ...
read full comment
which part are you arguing against? make your point and let us see the legs tit stands on.
Fellow Ghanaians, let us analyze the performance of the two main political parties in this country. NDC’s philosophy is “dzie wo fie asem”. In opposition they allowed the Kufuor regime to mind its own business. As a res ...
read full comment
Nana Kufuor; you say the NDC will improve everything. How is it, when given the chance in 2009, they have improved nothing? The President says 40% of schools under trees removed. He could have said 60% of schools under trees ...
read full comment
NPP wants the Supreme Court to declare Nana Addo as President of Ghana and this will never ever happen,let me state it clear here.
The essential logic of their petition is for the Supreme Court to remove Prez Mahama from pow ...
read full comment
Well done Kofi for this thought provoking piece,straight to the point and written in a language for clearer understanding.If there is one thing for which I however disagreed, it is branding former president Kufour as a true S ...
read full comment
1For lack of knowledge my people perished.
Kofi who do you want to tell you that NPP has nothing in their concocted cock and bull evidence?
Even though the law is there to protect the sitting president from such action, NDC ...
read full comment
In the application law, the supreme law of the Land naturally takes precedence over all other laws in matters of conflict of laws. So when the law expressly states that the president shall not be liable to civil or criminal P ...
read full comment
I am, not a lawyer, bur i will be surprised if the Supreme Court will put President in the box and cross examine OUR PRESIDENT.
We are waiting patiently. The SC shd expose the blindness and deafness of all the party agents ...
read full comment
MASSA KOFI, this is very insightful, logical, well-reasoned legal points and political arguments. This case is a historical first in Ghana. And whatever the outcome, it will have political connotation and political impacts.
...
read full comment
Lonto-Boy,
These are very interesting assertions coming from a "perceived" NPP supporter..It is good to know that many of us will rise above partisan politics and put the Nation Ghana and its overwhelming semi-literate ci ...
read full comment
great work. looking forward to the next part!!!
This excellent piece needs to be read with Prof Paul Kuruk's earlier piece on same subject.The two together provide us lay people with insights to understanding what is @play. Kofi and Paul, come again when necessary . Thanks
Proff Kurukshould consider some public lectures after the court case. national commision on civic education should use him as a resource person to help the nation. such education should be on-going to help people when crises ...
read full comment
I do not think there is any conflict here, and that the petitioners were right in citing CANDIDATE Mahama in the case. Taking part in an election is not a duty of the presidency. If we argue that the president was doing his c ...
read full comment
Absolute immunity given to one individual because he is the leader or president of a country is simply DANGEROUS to society in a democracy, in my opinion.
I think in a "nutshell", presidential immunities are granted or ava ...
read full comment
Blessings, I hope you are not inferring from the article that President Mahama has absolute immunity from prosecution whilst still in office. That is not what I said because there is nothing like absolute immunity. The exampl ...
read full comment
..MY COMMENT NEED NOT BE A DIRECT RESPONSE TO THE ARTICLE AT BAR..LOL.
Bro Kofi, I was just making a comment, to hopefully enrich this onging constitutional debate on "Presidential Immunity" while we await the final deci ...
read full comment
The absolute immunity enjoyed by any sitting President from civil or criminal proceedings that some of us talked about since this frevilous petitioned by the NPP, is in reference to Article 74 and 75 (5) of the 1992 constitut ...
read full comment
iS THE 'FARTER OF CAMBRIDGE' STILL EXTANT?
The cocoa farms of himself and Akyea Mensah have rip[ened, eh?
Adank is watching them but they don't know! One day they will vomit the money ourt!