"whilst Article 70(2) Suit is still before the Supreme Court?"
Kofi, the premise of your article is based on your subheading quoted above and my question is, did the Supreme Court place an injunction of the appointment of ... read full comment
"whilst Article 70(2) Suit is still before the Supreme Court?"
Kofi, the premise of your article is based on your subheading quoted above and my question is, did the Supreme Court place an injunction of the appointment of a new EC during its maiden hearing of the case? If not, then I don't see what prevents the president to execute his constitutionally mandate duty "...in consultation with the council of state..."
In consultation with the council of state as enshrined in the constitution is so simple to the understaning of anyone who is not out to play mischief of it. It's only a dumb and an ignorant person who will seek an interpretation to this simple clause. At any rate, the president has done his job and anyone who has any problem can go hang.
Whatever 8 years ago
If you can read a little, the uselessness of the so-called case in the Supreme court becomes clear.
If you can read a little, the uselessness of the so-called case in the Supreme court becomes clear.
Jojo Hammond, New Jersey 8 years ago
This is the best, common sense and simple to understand, interpretation I have read on this subject. For a "none-Lawyer", you put all these constitutional scholars to shame.
I have always sensed mischief in most of the ar ... read full comment
This is the best, common sense and simple to understand, interpretation I have read on this subject. For a "none-Lawyer", you put all these constitutional scholars to shame.
I have always sensed mischief in most of the arguments made, especially from the other side that try to insinuate that somehow, the President is acting contrary to the constitutional provisions regarding the appointment of the chair of the EC.
Another thing, I wonder why the focus is, and has been, on the EC chairman. Is the EC Chairman/chairperson that powerful that he/she controls completely the commission? If the EC chair is more powerful that the INSTITUTION that he/she chairs, then we have a problem as a nation. In a proper democracy, institutions are supposed to be stronger than those who lead them. Remember President Obama's speech to the Ghanaian parliament on this subject?
Jojo Hammond, New Jersey 8 years ago
I meant to write non-Lawyer
I meant to write non-Lawyer
Mahmoud 8 years ago
It's not over yet Mr. Kofi Atta. We are still waiting for the Supreme Court to interpret Article 70(2) and Article 91(3) of the constitution. We believe that the action taken by Mr. Mahama did not reflect the letter and spiri ... read full comment
It's not over yet Mr. Kofi Atta. We are still waiting for the Supreme Court to interpret Article 70(2) and Article 91(3) of the constitution. We believe that the action taken by Mr. Mahama did not reflect the letter and spirit of the above mentioned articles. But this has nothing to do with whether the lady appointed is qualified, fit to be the chairperson or not. In fact, that is a separate matter altogether.
Mr. Mahama should've waited for the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter before appointing the lady. He shouldn't have panicked because he felt the SC might decide against the presidential powers to appoint an EC boss and its members, which I believe is a real possibility. Those who are against his powers to appoint the EC chairperson have valid and concrete points. Since the president is also a political player, he should not be allowed to appoint the referee.
No matter the type of cut and paste constitution we may have, I don't believe the framers intended to give undue advantage to one political player over the others. Even though we know that it was written under the P/NDC military dictatorship that wanted to control every institution, and twisted the neck of Article 70(2) and Article 91(3) to appoint the first EC chairman in order to perpetuate their rule, it does not mean that we should allow the undemocratic process to continue indefinitely.
ALL-DIE-BE-DIE 8 years ago
Listen fool, we're discussing serious issues here and not foolishness; so take your stupidity else where, you little punk.
Listen fool, we're discussing serious issues here and not foolishness; so take your stupidity else where, you little punk.
Mahmoud 8 years ago
Appointing the Chairman and Members of the Electoral Commission
Columnist Asare, Kwaku S
The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) has called upon the President “to seize the opportunity of the appointment of a new Chairman of ... read full comment
Appointing the Chairman and Members of the Electoral Commission
Columnist Asare, Kwaku S
The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) has called upon the President “to seize the opportunity of the appointment of a new Chairman of the Electoral Commission (EC) to appoint a person of integrity who is perceived as capable and just and who will not pander to political pressures from any quarters.” According to the GBA, such an appointment will boost the image and credibility of the Commission.
I agree with the GBA on the attributes that the new Chairman of the EC must possess and strongly disagree with those who argue that the GBA’s call is, “at this time, highly unnecessary and uncalled for.” The tenure of Dr. Afari Gyan, the current Chairman of the EC, ends in November 2015 and it is not out of place for the GBA, or other stakeholders, to remind the appointing authorities to emplace a mechanism that assures that a competent and independent person can be identified and appointed.
Nevertheless, I am concerned that the GBA’s call overestimates, perhaps misunderstands, the President’s role in the appointment of the Chairman of the EC and has the potential to mislead the President into taking actions that will be ultra vires and inconsistent with his powers under the Constitution.
I start by acknowledging the breadth of the President’s appointment power under the Constitution. However, the nature of the power is position dependent, ranging from absolute, where the President acts alone, to perfunctory, where the President is required to appoint someone nominated by another body. For instance, the President has the power to appoint 11 members of the Council of State, 4 members of the Judicial Council and 2 members of the Police and Armed Forces Council. That power is absolute in that it is exercised solely at the discretion of the President without the involvement of any other constitutional body. On the other hand, the President appoints some officers, such as the Auditor General, in consultation with the Council of State while others, such as ministers, are appointed with the prior approval of Parliament.
The framers of the Constitution have imposed varying levels of constraints on the President’s appointment power for democratic, governance, prudential and historical considerations. Analyzing and understanding the nature of the President’s appointment power is, therefore, important to assuring that the power is exercised in the manner dictated by the Constitution.
In the Table below, I describe my understanding of the constraints that the Constitution imposes on the President's appointment power ranging from a Level 1 power (pure or absolute power) to a Level 10 power (perfunctory or ministerial power). In addition to the pure and perfunctory powers, I identify other appointments for which the President wields consultative, shared, or approval power. Consultative power means the President is required to consult another body prior to making an appointment. Shared Power means another body has to approve the President’s nomination. Approval Power means the President approves a nomination made by another body. Perfunctory power means the President is required to appoint persons nominated by other bodies. That is, the President has no involvement in selecting the nominee and no discretion in the appointment. Thus, the appointment power is merely ministerial involving no more than a mandatory appointment letter issued by the President. The process for appointing some public officers may involve a combination of powers. For instance, the President may be required to consult with the Council of State, hence a consultative power, and the nominee must be approved by Parliament, hence a shared power.
In addition to the Level and Nature of the power, the Table also provides the language employed by the Constitution and the positions for which the appointments are made. On close inspection of the Table, one observes that, as a general rule, the more independent the appointee is supposed to be in the performance of his task the more perfunctory the President's power. Such appointees also tend to have good-behavior life tenure. Conversely, the President typically acts alone to appoint persons who are part of bodies set up to advise him. These appointees tend to serve at the pleasure of the President or have tenure that is tied to the President’s. In effect, the nature of the President’s appointment power is remarkably nuanced and underscores the framers’ intention to subject the power to intricate and ingenious checks and balances.
As can be seen from the Table, the President’s power to appoint the Chairman and Members of the EC is at level 9a, which means that the power to make that appointment is perfunctory or ministerial. This is because Article 70(2) provides that, “The President shall, acting on the advice of the Council of State, appoint the Chairman, Deputy Chairmen, and other members of the Electoral Commission.” The plain and ordinary meaning of Article 70(2) is that the President is obliged to act on the advice of the Council of State in appointing the Chairman and Members of the EC.
There are two important points about the “advice” contemplated in Article 70(2). First, it is a term of art. Advice, in constitutional law, is a binding instruction given by one constitutional officer to another. It is not “advice” in the everyday meaning of the word. Second, the advice must be in the form of an appointee not some attributes of the appointee. That is, the Council of State is required to give the President a nominee to appoint not advice in the form of, for instance, “Mr. President, we advice you to choose a man of integrity.”
The use of “advice” as a binding instruction has a long history in our Constitutional history. For instance, Section 16 of the 1957 Constitution provides that “the Governor-General, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoints parliamentary secretaries to assist ministers.” Similarly, Section 7 of that Constitution provides that, “any minister may be removed from office by the Governor-General acting on the advice of the Prime Minister.” The Prime Minister at that time was Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah and the Governor-General was Sir Charles Arden-Clerk [from March to June 1957] and the Earl of Listowel [June 1957 to June 1960]. It was, of course, well established, known and beyond dispute that the Prime Minister’s advice was binding on the Governor-General. Thus, the latter’s appointment power was merely perfunctory and the substantive power of appointment was vested in the Prime Minister. Moreover, it was also understood that the Governor-General played no role in the identification, vetting and selection or removal of the nominees, that power being vested in the Prime Minister.
As another example, both the 1969 (Article 30(2)) and 1979 (Article 37(2)) Constitutions provided that, “the Electoral Commissioner shall be appointed by the President, acting in accordance with the advice of the Council of State.” This simply meant that both President Edward Akufo Addo (1969-1972) and Hilla Liman (1979-1981) had a perfunctory appointment power with the substantive power to appoint the Electoral Commissioner vested in the Council of State. The framers of the 1992 Constitution did not break any new grounds in the process for appointing the Chairman and Members of the EC and clearly intended the meaning of advice as employed in the prior Constitutions.
Nor is that usage and meaning of advice unique to our constitutional history. The phrase originated in the United Kingdom and is still in use many common law jurisdictions. For instance, in the United Kingdom, the Queen appoints senior judges acting on the advice of the Prime Minister. In Canada, the Queen acts entirely on the advice of Canadian Government ministers. In Jamaica, the Governor-General, the Queen’s representative, acts in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister. In all these cases, it is well understood that the advice given is binding and the Queen and Governor-General exercise only perfunctory powers.
Thus, when Article 70(2) of the 1992 Constitution provides that the President shall act on the advice of the Council of State, it contemplates that the Council of State (Council) will put in place a mechanism to search for, vet and nominate a candidate for the President to appoint. The Council could do so in a variety of ways. First, it could work through a committee of the Council. Essentially, this becomes a Search Committee tasked to identify a short list of qualified persons for the Council to choose from. Second, the Council is permitted to commission experts and other consultants to advise it. It could do so here. Third, the Council could advertise the position or call on citizens, political parties, NGOs, etc. to nominate candidates either to the Council at large or to the Search Committee. Finally, the Council could use my least favorite approach ? choose someone from within the EC, probably from the other members or a respected senior staff.
The important point is that Article 70(2) not only obligates the President to appoint whomever the Council nominates but it also bars the President from sending a name or otherwise consulting with the Council prior to the nomination. This process can be contrasted to the level 2 appointments where the Constitution contemplates a consultative process. For instance, the President appoints the District Assemblies Common Fund Administrator acting in consultation with the Council of State. By creating subsections of Article 70, the framers highlighted that the process for appointing Article 70(1) officers differs from that of Article 70(2) officers.
The rational for assigning the President a perfunctory role in the appointment of the Chairman and Members of the EC is not far fetched. The EC is, in essence the political referee of the quadrennial political games, and it is flawed constitutional design for the President, a key political player, to have an active role in the EC’s appointment. Incidentally, this, in my opinion, is also the reason why Parliament is excluded from this appointment process. It would have been absurd to assign the President a critical role in the appointment process and exclude Parliament, hence the opposition parties, from the process. Thus, a purposive interpretation of Article 70(2) will also support the conclusion that the President’s power to appoint the Chairman and Members of the EC is only ministerial.
The framers operated on the assumption that the Council is an independent, non-partisan body and could be trusted with the task of essentially appointing the Members and Chairman of the EC. Thus, the Council's independence and integrity are critical to the effectiveness of this appointment scheme. Nevertheless, because the President has a level 1 power to appoint 11 out of the 25 Council members, it is important that any process established by the Council to discharge its Article 70(2) function is transparent and verifiable. Without a high level of transparency and verifiability, it is impossible to know whether the President has acted on the advice of the Council or impermissibly acted in Consultation with the Council. Thus, sound governance and prudential considerations will require the Council to employ a transparent nomination, vetting and selection process. The Council must not only act independently of the President, in the discharge of its Article 70(2) responsibility, it must go the extra mile to be seen to be independent.
In conclusion, the President’s power to appoint the Chairman and Members of the EC is merely a ministerial one. The substantive power of appointment is assigned to the Council of State. The President shall act on the advice of the Council of State means the President is barred from the nomination, vetting and selection process. Those who framed the Constitution were keenly aware of the impropriety inherent in allowing the President, a political player, to play a critical role in selecting the political referee. Nevertheless, out of deference for the office of the President, the framers allowed him, as the Chief Executive Officer, the honour of “appointing” the candidate selected by the Council of State. In this case, all the President is required to do is to issue the appointment letter under the Presidential seal but no more.
"Since the president is also a political player, he should not be allowed to appoint the referee." - Mahmoud
That is a very sensible comment.
"Since the president is also a political player, he should not be allowed to appoint the referee." - Mahmoud
That is a very sensible comment.
YAW 8 years ago
Well written,informative and intelligent interpretation for an average Ghanaian to understand. Kofi, is following the footsteps of another no-nonsense writer called Bill Bryson, always eager to simplify dense texts for the b ... read full comment
Well written,informative and intelligent interpretation for an average Ghanaian to understand. Kofi, is following the footsteps of another no-nonsense writer called Bill Bryson, always eager to simplify dense texts for the benefit of the Plebs. Jojo, kindly get a copy of Brysons book {A Short History of Nearly Everything}.Take care of yourself.
Jojo Hammond, New Jersey 8 years ago
Will definitely look for the mentioned book. Great to hear from you again.
Will definitely look for the mentioned book. Great to hear from you again.
Mahmoud 8 years ago
The president has no right under the constitution to appoint EC chairperson and its members. His powers under the constitution in this regard are perfunctory and not substantive like appointing his own ministers. His appointm ... read full comment
The president has no right under the constitution to appoint EC chairperson and its members. His powers under the constitution in this regard are perfunctory and not substantive like appointing his own ministers. His appointment of the lady is, therefore, ultra vires because the president is a leading political player and does not have substantive powers under the constitution to appoint a political referee who is supposed to be independent and impartial in the discharge of his/her duties. In fact, the appointment is against the letter and spirit of the constitution. Our constitution does not seek to give undue advantage to one political player over all the other players, and the real meaning of the word "advice" must be understood in its constitutional context.
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 8 years ago
Mahmoud, which constitution are you referring to because under the 1992 the president has powers to appoint the EC, Period. You guys are wasting your time hoping against hope that the SC will disturb the status quo. You will ... read full comment
Mahmoud, which constitution are you referring to because under the 1992 the president has powers to appoint the EC, Period. You guys are wasting your time hoping against hope that the SC will disturb the status quo. You will be disappointed.
Mahmoud 8 years ago
We surely have an important case pending at the Supreme Court.
The president has no right under the constitution to appoint EC chairperson and its members. His powers under the constitution in this regard are perfunctory ... read full comment
We surely have an important case pending at the Supreme Court.
The president has no right under the constitution to appoint EC chairperson and its members. His powers under the constitution in this regard are perfunctory and not substantive like appointing his own ministers. His appointment of the lady is, therefore, ultra vires because the president is a leading political player and does not have substantive powers under the constitution to appoint a political referee who is supposed to be independent and impartial in the discharge of his/her duties. In fact, the appointment is against the letter and spirit of the constitution. Our constitution does not seek to give undue advantage to one political player over all the other players, and the real meaning of the word "advice" must be understood in its constitutional context.
Dr. SAS, Attorney at Law 8 years ago
A very good analysis by Bro. Kofi Atta.
I am glad that for the first time in many years, you have written something sensible on which we both agree.
I would only say that the Supreme Court should not have accepted to he ... read full comment
A very good analysis by Bro. Kofi Atta.
I am glad that for the first time in many years, you have written something sensible on which we both agree.
I would only say that the Supreme Court should not have accepted to hear the case seeking interpretation, since there is enough body of laws to confer the appointing authority on the executive, and precedential actions have validated the process since independence. In other words there is nothing to interpret about the President having the authority to appoint the EC.
But having accepted the case, the Supreme Court should throw it out ASAP. After all, with the appointment of the EC and the general concurrences of the parties, the issue is now moot.
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 8 years ago
Dr SAS, the Supreme Court has been turned into a market and instead of the court of last resort it has become the court of first call. I agree that this matter should not have been accepted by the SC
Dr SAS, the Supreme Court has been turned into a market and instead of the court of last resort it has become the court of first call. I agree that this matter should not have been accepted by the SC
kofi Bansa 8 years ago
Dominc Nitiwul should shut up when matters of law are discussed else he makes a fool of himself.
Dominc Nitiwul should shut up when matters of law are discussed else he makes a fool of himself.
LONTO-BOY 8 years ago
MASSA KOFI, this is a well-written and reasonable piece. Like it or not, the Constitution explicitly assigns to the President, the Prerogative Power, which allows President John Mahama in this circumstances, the power to appo ... read full comment
MASSA KOFI, this is a well-written and reasonable piece. Like it or not, the Constitution explicitly assigns to the President, the Prerogative Power, which allows President John Mahama in this circumstances, the power to appoint the EC Chair.
The Supreme Court move was just an attempt to impede President Mahama's ability to exercise his Prerogative Power in the appointment of the EC Chair. Seeking Supreme Court interpretation on this issue, is and would have been pointless. Whether President Mahama is to appoint the EC Chair with advice from, recommendation from, or consultation with, the Council of State is an exercise in futility.
Chawchaw 8 years ago
Distance themselves from the 'incurable idiots' bent on impeding the forward march of this nation! I just hope more individuals will rise up and help derail the diabolical plans of these nation-wreckers.
Distance themselves from the 'incurable idiots' bent on impeding the forward march of this nation! I just hope more individuals will rise up and help derail the diabolical plans of these nation-wreckers.
Mahmoud 8 years ago
, the President’s power to appoint the Chairman and Members of the EC is merely a ministerial one. The substantive power of appointment is assigned to the Council of State. The President shall act on the advice of the Counc ... read full comment
, the President’s power to appoint the Chairman and Members of the EC is merely a ministerial one. The substantive power of appointment is assigned to the Council of State. The President shall act on the advice of the Council of State means the President is barred from the nomination, vetting and selection process. Those who framed the Constitution were keenly aware of the impropriety inherent in allowing the President, a political player, to play a critical role in selecting the political referee. Nevertheless, out of deference for the office of the President, the framers allowed him, as the Chief Executive Officer, the honour of “appointing” the candidate selected by the Council of State. In this case, all the President is required to do is to issue the appointment letter under the Presidential seal but no more.
Dr. SAS, Attorney at Law 8 years ago
You quote:
"The President shall act on the advice of the Council of State means the President is barred from the nomination, vetting and selection process."
But it could also be read to mean that the president has no al ... read full comment
You quote:
"The President shall act on the advice of the Council of State means the President is barred from the nomination, vetting and selection process."
But it could also be read to mean that the president has no alternative but to act in appointing the electoral commissioner, but either before or after consulting with the Council of State. The modal auxiliary could be an intensive verb referring to the president's inherent act, and could be decoupled from the advice of the Council of State.
Prof. Asare's narrow reading fails to take account of precedent, custom, tradition and practice and persuasive evidence in countries whose constitutional provisions we have substantially borrowed. He made another curious interpretation to support an absurd assertion that the president cannot even initiate a constitutional amendment. What else can the president do?
Such an interpretation puts the hat on the knee-cap instead of the head.
I believe the work to win the elections should not be co-mixed with the useless litigation over the president's exercise of a power that is clearly given by the constitution.
LONTO-BOY 8 years ago
Thanks for your objective and intellectually impressive perspective.
Thanks for your objective and intellectually impressive perspective.
Chawchaw 8 years ago
Providing the 'intellectual underpining' to guide the upcoming election effort, do you believe 2016 would be any different from what we have seen in the past?
Rather than focus on what they new ideas/proposals they bring to ... read full comment
Providing the 'intellectual underpining' to guide the upcoming election effort, do you believe 2016 would be any different from what we have seen in the past?
Rather than focus on what they new ideas/proposals they bring to the table, these 'Smart Alecs', have started off on the wrong footing by unnecessarily entangling themselves in legalese [the proverbial whereto for(s)]!
Nobody should be surprised to see them promise 'Heaven-on-Earth', this time around ,when desperation sets in.
This vain attempt to unsettle Charlotte Osei, downeven before she gets down to show us what she can do, is certainly not going to win anyone any 'browny points',and will certainly come to nought!
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 8 years ago
Dr SAS, my good friend and classmate Prof Asare does not believe in precedent, custom and tradition and practice. In a discussion regarding my earlier position that how previous Article 70(2) appointments were done should be ... read full comment
Dr SAS, my good friend and classmate Prof Asare does not believe in precedent, custom and tradition and practice. In a discussion regarding my earlier position that how previous Article 70(2) appointments were done should be a guide, he responded that customary practice is not the law. This was in my article entitled "Is Nana Akufo-Addo Experiencing Amnesia?", Ghanaweb April 22, 2015.
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 8 years ago
Mahmoud, stop following blindly and think for yourself instead of cutting and pasting what others have written and said. The Ghanaian President is an Executive President and not a ceremonial one. How do you expect an elected ... read full comment
Mahmoud, stop following blindly and think for yourself instead of cutting and pasting what others have written and said. The Ghanaian President is an Executive President and not a ceremonial one. How do you expect an elected Executive President to sit down for an unelected and unaccountable body with simple advisory role that is not binding on the President or Ministers to make such an important executive decision for the President to just follow? Does that make sense?
Can you stop pasting Prof Asare's article whenever I post article on this subject? I read the article and have discussions with him from time to time on this matter. If he wants to repsot the article on Ghanaweb he will do so himself.
Chawchaw 8 years ago
Mahmoud may be acting as a proxy for your friend Azar?
Mahmoud may be acting as a proxy for your friend Azar?
francis kwarteng 8 years ago
Dear Brother Ata,
Good day.
This is one of the most thoughtful pieces I read yesterday.
However, I did not comment on it because I had to write a quick rebuttal to Kobina Philip Baidoo, Jr.'s article, publsihed alon ... read full comment
Dear Brother Ata,
Good day.
This is one of the most thoughtful pieces I read yesterday.
However, I did not comment on it because I had to write a quick rebuttal to Kobina Philip Baidoo, Jr.'s article, publsihed alongside yours.
Your piece is clear, pointed, and eloquent on the finest points of constitutional interpretation, its political application and direct implications for "democratic" governance.
Thanks for a well-written and thoughtful piece.
Have a great weekend.
Thanks.
Mahmoud 8 years ago
Mr. Kofi, do you really believe that the framers of the 1992 constitution meant to give undue advantage to the president who is a leading political player to substantively appoint a political referee? If you are confused with ... read full comment
Mr. Kofi, do you really believe that the framers of the 1992 constitution meant to give undue advantage to the president who is a leading political player to substantively appoint a political referee? If you are confused with the letter of Article 70(2), you shouldn't be confused with the spirit of the Article.
You have another mixed up in your mind, and that is the difference between presidential and parliamentary systems. Separation of powers are normally more stringent in presidential systems than they are in parliamentary systems. And as we said earlier, the president's appointment powers in this regard are perfunctory because the position is for the provision of impartial and independent services to all stakeholders in Ghana and not for a particular administration. Moreover,the framers were not stupid to give undue advantage to one particular political player over all the rest, and that's why they put those checks and balances in the appointment of the EC Chair and its members.
Mike frm Ho 8 years ago
I always enjoy reading writeups by you and Dr. Michael Bokor. Mr. Kofi Ata keep educating us.
I always enjoy reading writeups by you and Dr. Michael Bokor. Mr. Kofi Ata keep educating us.
Okonko Palm 8 years ago
It is silly to assume that the mere fact of a matter before the court whether in litigation or interpretation automatically amounts to an estoppel.If so the whole system would come to a halt with vexatious writs such as that ... read full comment
It is silly to assume that the mere fact of a matter before the court whether in litigation or interpretation automatically amounts to an estoppel.If so the whole system would come to a halt with vexatious writs such as that of Dela Sky.
I would not want to belabor the subject since Kofi has done a good job on it.The fact of the matter is that unless otherwise stated as part of the writ for a stay or through injunction,it suffice to say that a writ does not operate as a stay of normal proceedings and activities unless directed otherwise.
Obournana 8 years ago
NPP has a lot of idiots and scholars who have allowed politics to ruin their thinking capabilities. They rush to court without second thought. There was on injunction on the president to withhold the appointment. All the NPP ... read full comment
NPP has a lot of idiots and scholars who have allowed politics to ruin their thinking capabilities. They rush to court without second thought. There was on injunction on the president to withhold the appointment. All the NPP lawyers making noise do not qualify to be lawyers. They purchased their way through to become lawyers. It's very unfortunate we have such foxes among un in our political arena. Thank you, Kofi Ata.
Brownlow 8 years ago
lf someone is building on your land and you sue him in court, nothing stops him from continuing building on the land until an injunction order is served on him restraining him from doing so.
lf someone is building on your land and you sue him in court, nothing stops him from continuing building on the land until an injunction order is served on him restraining him from doing so.
Lawrence 8 years ago
This is one of the best analysis by Kofi so far. This is an article I would wish all Ghanaians would read to know the difference between what Kofi is saying and the rest of the people.
This is one of the best analysis by Kofi so far. This is an article I would wish all Ghanaians would read to know the difference between what Kofi is saying and the rest of the people.
"whilst Article 70(2) Suit is still before the Supreme Court?"
Kofi, the premise of your article is based on your subheading quoted above and my question is, did the Supreme Court place an injunction of the appointment of ...
read full comment
If you can read a little, the uselessness of the so-called case in the Supreme court becomes clear.
This is the best, common sense and simple to understand, interpretation I have read on this subject. For a "none-Lawyer", you put all these constitutional scholars to shame.
I have always sensed mischief in most of the ar ...
read full comment
I meant to write non-Lawyer
It's not over yet Mr. Kofi Atta. We are still waiting for the Supreme Court to interpret Article 70(2) and Article 91(3) of the constitution. We believe that the action taken by Mr. Mahama did not reflect the letter and spiri ...
read full comment
Listen fool, we're discussing serious issues here and not foolishness; so take your stupidity else where, you little punk.
Appointing the Chairman and Members of the Electoral Commission
Columnist Asare, Kwaku S
The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) has called upon the President “to seize the opportunity of the appointment of a new Chairman of ...
read full comment
"Since the president is also a political player, he should not be allowed to appoint the referee." - Mahmoud
That is a very sensible comment.
Well written,informative and intelligent interpretation for an average Ghanaian to understand. Kofi, is following the footsteps of another no-nonsense writer called Bill Bryson, always eager to simplify dense texts for the b ...
read full comment
Will definitely look for the mentioned book. Great to hear from you again.
The president has no right under the constitution to appoint EC chairperson and its members. His powers under the constitution in this regard are perfunctory and not substantive like appointing his own ministers. His appointm ...
read full comment
Mahmoud, which constitution are you referring to because under the 1992 the president has powers to appoint the EC, Period. You guys are wasting your time hoping against hope that the SC will disturb the status quo. You will ...
read full comment
We surely have an important case pending at the Supreme Court.
The president has no right under the constitution to appoint EC chairperson and its members. His powers under the constitution in this regard are perfunctory ...
read full comment
A very good analysis by Bro. Kofi Atta.
I am glad that for the first time in many years, you have written something sensible on which we both agree.
I would only say that the Supreme Court should not have accepted to he ...
read full comment
Dr SAS, the Supreme Court has been turned into a market and instead of the court of last resort it has become the court of first call. I agree that this matter should not have been accepted by the SC
Dominc Nitiwul should shut up when matters of law are discussed else he makes a fool of himself.
MASSA KOFI, this is a well-written and reasonable piece. Like it or not, the Constitution explicitly assigns to the President, the Prerogative Power, which allows President John Mahama in this circumstances, the power to appo ...
read full comment
Distance themselves from the 'incurable idiots' bent on impeding the forward march of this nation! I just hope more individuals will rise up and help derail the diabolical plans of these nation-wreckers.
, the President’s power to appoint the Chairman and Members of the EC is merely a ministerial one. The substantive power of appointment is assigned to the Council of State. The President shall act on the advice of the Counc ...
read full comment
You quote:
"The President shall act on the advice of the Council of State means the President is barred from the nomination, vetting and selection process."
But it could also be read to mean that the president has no al ...
read full comment
Thanks for your objective and intellectually impressive perspective.
Providing the 'intellectual underpining' to guide the upcoming election effort, do you believe 2016 would be any different from what we have seen in the past?
Rather than focus on what they new ideas/proposals they bring to ...
read full comment
Dr SAS, my good friend and classmate Prof Asare does not believe in precedent, custom and tradition and practice. In a discussion regarding my earlier position that how previous Article 70(2) appointments were done should be ...
read full comment
Mahmoud, stop following blindly and think for yourself instead of cutting and pasting what others have written and said. The Ghanaian President is an Executive President and not a ceremonial one. How do you expect an elected ...
read full comment
Mahmoud may be acting as a proxy for your friend Azar?
Dear Brother Ata,
Good day.
This is one of the most thoughtful pieces I read yesterday.
However, I did not comment on it because I had to write a quick rebuttal to Kobina Philip Baidoo, Jr.'s article, publsihed alon ...
read full comment
Mr. Kofi, do you really believe that the framers of the 1992 constitution meant to give undue advantage to the president who is a leading political player to substantively appoint a political referee? If you are confused with ...
read full comment
I always enjoy reading writeups by you and Dr. Michael Bokor. Mr. Kofi Ata keep educating us.
It is silly to assume that the mere fact of a matter before the court whether in litigation or interpretation automatically amounts to an estoppel.If so the whole system would come to a halt with vexatious writs such as that ...
read full comment
NPP has a lot of idiots and scholars who have allowed politics to ruin their thinking capabilities. They rush to court without second thought. There was on injunction on the president to withhold the appointment. All the NPP ...
read full comment
lf someone is building on your land and you sue him in court, nothing stops him from continuing building on the land until an injunction order is served on him restraining him from doing so.
This is one of the best analysis by Kofi so far. This is an article I would wish all Ghanaians would read to know the difference between what Kofi is saying and the rest of the people.