Private legal practitioner and law lecturer, Dr Justice Srem-Sai has challenged the basis of President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo’s refusal to approve to law three private member bills passed by Parliament in recent times.
Explaining the process through which a bill can be considered as a law, the Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law at the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration posited that the President’s veto power is not a ‘blank cheque’, hence he cannot act as he wishes or as he pleases with the power given to him by the constitution.
According to Justice Sram Sai, for President Akufo-Addo’s veto of a bill to be valid, he must act in accordance with the Constitution.
“A law passed by Parliament (a bill) is not a full law (an Act) until the President signs it. This means that the President has the power to sign or to refuse to sign a bill. When he signs, we say he has given his assent; when he refuses, he has vetoed it. In August and in November this year, Parliament passed and presented some bills to the President to sign into Acts. Now, the President is claiming that he has vetoed the bills. The question is – is the President’s purported veto valid?”
Dr Justice Sraim Sai
President Obligations To The Constitution In The Exercise of Veto Power
Dr Justice Sram Sai further explained that the President, in the exercise of the veto power, is limited or restricted in at least two clear ways, which is in respect of time and in respect of the specific grounds based upon which he may veto a bill.
According to Justice Sraim Sai if the President defaults in satisfying any of the constitutional timelines, which is the seven days, or the 14 days, the President’s veto power becomes invalid.
He further argued that in such a situation, the President may be deemed to have assented to the bill notwithstanding that he has not actually signed it.
“TIME: Generally, he has up to 21 days (from the day the Speaker of Parliament presents the bill to him) to exercise the veto power. First, he has 7 days to “signify” to the Speaker that he has vetoed the bill; then, an additional 14 days to provide the grounds for the veto.
“On the facts, one of the bills in question was presented to the President in August. The other 2 were presented to him in November. No one heard from him in respect of the memorandum until December 12. Now, do the maths. That’s not all’.
Dr Justice Sraim Sai
Moreover, the Private Legal Practitioner and law lecturer explained further that the President’s veto power is exercisable only where he seeks a change or an amendment to specific provisions of the bill.
He noted that the President’s reasons for vetoing a bill are limited to the content of the bills and hence if President Akufo-Addo had any other concerns over the bills he like any other citizen, would have to use other established mechanisms for enforcing the Constitution.
“In this case, however, the President is not seeking to change or amend any provision of the bill. His only reason for exercising the veto power is that the bill came from an MP (Hon. Francis Sosu) and not from him (President Akufo Addo”.
Dr Justice Sraim Sai
Dr Justice Sraim Sai emphasized that President Akufo-Addo cannot use the veto power, as a means to settle political or personal scores.
President Akufo-Addo in a letter to the Speaker of Parliament, Rt. Honourable Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin communicated his refusal to approve the Criminal Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2023, Criminal Offences (Amendment) (No.2) Bill, 2023, and Armed Forces (Amendment) Bill, 2023 which was passed by parliament this year.
According to President Akufo-Addo the bills flout article 108 of the Constitution which bars Private Members Bills from imposing a charge on the Consolidated Fund.
