Can the Speaker Interpret the Constitution?

Read Comments Comments (14)

• Ghanaman 11 years ago

  Why not ask Mahama if he can perform his functions when he is the Vatican hotel?

  Why not ask Mahama if he can perform his functions when he is the Vatican hotel?

  reply
• SARPONG 11 years ago

  Actually there is no need for Doe Adjaho to be sworn in as the President because our interpretation of the constitution is wrong here. UNABLE to perform does not mean absence from the country.
  
  Even when the President is ou ...
  read full comment

  Actually there is no need for Doe Adjaho to be sworn in as the President because our interpretation of the constitution is wrong here. UNABLE to perform does not mean absence from the country.
  
  Even when the President is out of the country, he can still perform his function as the President.
  
  Case in point, when President Reagan was shot in early 1980's, he was still the President until he was put under anesthesia and unable to speak that the power as President was transferred to George Bush the 41st President who was the Vice-president then.
  
  Unable is not the same as absence from the country. Our constitution says UNABLE .
  
  Doe Adjaho can only be sworn in as the President if President Mahama and Vice-president Amissah Arthur may God forbid are incapacitated at the same time and that is when Doe Adjaho should be sworn in.

  reply
• OKOE 11 years ago

  I AM NEITHER A LAW MAKER NOR A LAWYER BUT HAVING READ ALL ARTICLES SO FAR PRESENTED, I SUPPORT THE INTERPRETATION THAT THE SITUATION WHERE BOTH THE PRESIDENT AND THE VICE ARE JUST AWAY FROM THE COUNTRY DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY AC ...
  read full comment

  I AM NEITHER A LAW MAKER NOR A LAWYER BUT HAVING READ ALL ARTICLES SO FAR PRESENTED, I SUPPORT THE INTERPRETATION THAT THE SITUATION WHERE BOTH THE PRESIDENT AND THE VICE ARE JUST AWAY FROM THE COUNTRY DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ACTING PRESIDENT. I FEEL THE SUPREME COURT MUST GIVE ITS INTERPRETATION TO REST THIS AMBIGUITY ONCE AND FOR ALL.

  reply
• CORNEY 11 years ago

  Mr Kofi Attah, Cambridge,who told you Justice Bamfo- Addo was not elected?
  Although the Speaker is always coming from the majority side members of parliament as the first step elect the Speaker before the inauguration of the ...
  read full comment

  Mr Kofi Attah, Cambridge,who told you Justice Bamfo- Addo was not elected?
  Although the Speaker is always coming from the majority side members of parliament as the first step elect the Speaker before the inauguration of the incoming president,which ever form that election is the speaker is always elected.
  Personally,this issue is boring and must be treated as such.

  reply
• SARPONG 11 years ago

  Corney, who told you the Speaker of Parliament comes from the majority side?
  
  The speaker is not an elected member of Parliament though the Majority Party and the President appoints whoever they want to be the Speaker, the ...
  read full comment

  Corney, who told you the Speaker of Parliament comes from the majority side?
  
  The speaker is not an elected member of Parliament though the Majority Party and the President appoints whoever they want to be the Speaker, the Speaker can be apolitical or cannot be a member of the majority or minority party.
  
  Tell us who elected Justice Bamfo Addo, you mean Ndc elected him.
  
  If a member of the majority side is elected as Speaker, he ceases to represent the constituency he represents in Parliament and another person have to be elected to represent that constituency as happened in Doe Adjaho case.
  
  Justice Bamfo Addo was never a member of parliament.

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 11 years ago

  CORNEY, for which parliamentary constituency in Ghana did Justice Bamford-Addo stood for and was elected as Member of Parliament in the 2008 Parliamentary Elections? She was unelected but nominated by the Executive/Majority i ...
  read full comment

  CORNEY, for which parliamentary constituency in Ghana did Justice Bamford-Addo stood for and was elected as Member of Parliament in the 2008 Parliamentary Elections? She was unelected but nominated by the Executive/Majority in parliament. The same was the case of the first Speaker, the late Justice Annan. The matter is very serious and not boring. If such constitutional breaches are not checked what happened in Burkina Faso could happen in Ghana one day.

  reply
• Okonko Palm 11 years ago

  There is a hierarchy of leadership in Ghana.The president,the vice president,the speaker and the chief justice in that order.Where I agree with Kofi is that in the event of incapacity we all know what the hierarchy is and the ...
  read full comment

  There is a hierarchy of leadership in Ghana.The president,the vice president,the speaker and the chief justice in that order.Where I agree with Kofi is that in the event of incapacity we all know what the hierarchy is and the only way that a constitutional crisis could result is if the hierarchy is questioned.
  
  I am not sure what actually transpired when the CJ went to parliament on that faithful day to administer the presidential oath.The reports from parliament had it that it was the CJ who in her opinion thought the swearing in ceremony was not required.If the understanding of the parties at the time was not to go ahead with the ceremony it will be suicidal for the speaker to allow the cj to perform the ceremony when she came the second time to administer the oath.That will be an admission and knowledge of a breach of a constitutional requirement which is serious indeed.
  
  The present stand off is an indication that both the speaker and the CJ are not sure what the true interpretation of the constitution is and this should exonerate them from any breach.If we all don't then where is the breach and the crisis.Unless this aspect of the constitution is clarified and properly interpreted it will continue to result in confusion.
  
  There is also this augment that that the Asare ruling was a narrow one and what the sc did was to clarify what happens in the absence of the president and the vice under the scenario envisaged by the constitution.What they did not do was to define what constitutes incapacity and under what circumstances can we determine that.
  
  Unless we find answer to these questions we would be going round and round.There are some legal implication involved here because if it is determined that the swearing in ceremony was not required that could as well amount to a constitutional crisis if it had been administered so it is a double edged sword.It is up to the sc to constitute itself and resolve the problem.

  reply
• Ghana 11 years ago

  Fateful day not faithful day

  Fateful day not faithful day

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 11 years ago

  Okonko palm, it is not true that it was the Chief Justice who in her view decided that the oath of September 13, 2013 was ok and so there was no need for the Speaker to take it again. That was put out by the the Majority Chie ...
  read full comment

  Okonko palm, it is not true that it was the Chief Justice who in her view decided that the oath of September 13, 2013 was ok and so there was no need for the Speaker to take it again. That was put out by the the Majority Chief Whip (Muntaka) who withdrew that statement on Saturday. The Speaker refused to answer questions from the media and referred the media to parliament.
  
  The fact that the Chief Justice was in parliament again on November 7 to swear in the Speaker meant in her view the Speaker must take the oath each time the President and Vice are unable to perform the functions of the president.

  reply
• Okonko Palm 11 years ago

  Lets assume that what you said is true.The fact that the ceremony did not go on that day indicate a difference in opinion that was why the oath was not taken.It will be wrong to expect the speaker to take the oath the second ...
  read full comment

  Lets assume that what you said is true.The fact that the ceremony did not go on that day indicate a difference in opinion that was why the oath was not taken.It will be wrong to expect the speaker to take the oath the second time when he did not do that the first time it will be an admission of a constitutional breach.
  
  As a result which ever way you look at it there was a breach of a constitutional requirement that day - the non administering and if it were administered-As it is we would not know which is right until the proper definition of the word incapacitated is clarified since it did not form part of the Asare ruling.
  
  My understanding on the matter is that in this situation the speakers opinion prevails until a properly constituted panel of the sc decides otherwise.

  reply
• STONER KOBYLYNTON 11 years ago

  The brouhaha about this temporary take over of the Presidency by the Speaker in the absence of both the President and his Vice will not put food on the tables of our poor folks, who life is treating them bad.
  
  The framers o ...
  read full comment

  The brouhaha about this temporary take over of the Presidency by the Speaker in the absence of both the President and his Vice will not put food on the tables of our poor folks, who life is treating them bad.
  
  The framers of the Constitution did poor job with the particular reference to the Article 60(11) which says "Where the President and the Vice-President are both unable to perform the functions of the President, the Speaker of Parliament shall perform those functions until the President or the Vice-President is able to perform those functions or a new President assumes office, as the case may be.” The disturbing or ambiguous part of this sentence is "both unable to perform the functions" The two gentlemen are away on government business and whatever contract they negotiate with other governments or entities are binding. Does it mean that they are not functioning because they are away from the country?
  
  Assuming both gentlemen are away on different issues and let say the Speaker was swore in and the President return and takes his office and have to go to North Africa country on a day trip and come back the next day, takes his office and have to make an impromptu or pertitent journey on his arrival to a european country, does it make sense at all these times to swear in the Speaker again and again? This is constitutional nonsense. Common sense will not entertain this bull crap. The clause should be worded again and make it flexible for the Speaker to step in as President in the absence of both gentlemen. The only time he needs to be swore in is where both gentlemen are incapacitated or pass away. No big deal about this. Folks are starving - that is utmost important than this constitutional nonsense. E&OE.

  reply
• Sam 11 years ago

  There shd not be any swearing in of the Speaker as President when both the President and his Vice are away from Ghana. The Speaker shd maintain his tilte as the Speaker but automatically becomes the leader of the government w ...
  read full comment

  There shd not be any swearing in of the Speaker as President when both the President and his Vice are away from Ghana. The Speaker shd maintain his tilte as the Speaker but automatically becomes the leader of the government when the P and VP are away. If the Speaker is sworn in as the President of Ghana, then in this case, Mahama and his Vice can not transact business in the countries they have visisted in their capacities as P and Vice of Ghana. Ghana can not have two presidents at a time. Mahama is still the president of Ghana if he is in Iceland or Bechuanaland.

  reply
• SARPONG 11 years ago

  Well said. Even if he is on the moon, he can still communicate his decisions to the country. No need to have another President.

  Well said. Even if he is on the moon, he can still communicate his decisions to the country. No need to have another President.

  reply
• Lawrence 11 years ago

  The question is not the Speaker ought to be sworn-in or not if the P and the VP are not in the country. That question has already been settled by the Supreme Court and unless there is a review, that is the law of the land. Th ...
  read full comment

  The question is not the Speaker ought to be sworn-in or not if the P and the VP are not in the country. That question has already been settled by the Supreme Court and unless there is a review, that is the law of the land. The issue now is should the Speaker be sworn-in as many times as the P and the VP are not in the country? To me, that is what both the article and all commentators have all refused to address. For me an oath is an oath and it is taken only once for the same occassions.

  reply