The recent tension between Ghana’s parliament and the judiciary has raised questions about parliamentary autonomy, its limits, and the extent of judicial intervention.
According to Esq. Caruthers Tetteh, an astute lawyer and law lecturer at the University of Cape Coast, parliamentary autonomy is essential within the framework of the Separation of Powers doctrine.
However, Tetteh noted that this autonomy is limited when parliamentary actions exceed the boundaries set by the Constitution.
He noted that judicial oversight is necessary to ensure that the legislative body remains within its jurisdiction, emphasizing the importance of checks and balances.
“So that despite the fact that an arm of government is to work independently, there’s another arm of government which is to check whether that arm of government is not acting in excess of its powers or jurisdiction.
“By the 1992 Constitution, you cannot enact a law making Ghana a one-party system. So assuming the legislature, which is mandated to enact laws, says that Ghana is going to operate a one-party system, this [will be a] clear violation of the provision of the constitution. So you will need another—the judiciary—to indicate that parliament’s action is in contravention of the provision of the constitution.”
Esq. Caruthers Tetteh
In an interview with the Vaultz News, Esq. Tetteh discussed the Supreme Court’s ruling, which directed Parliament to halt its decision regarding three MPs who declared independence and one MP who crossed the floor to join the NPP.
He stated that the court’s action is legally justified, as the law grants it the authority to suspend parliamentary actions pending a final ruling.
Esq. Tetteh further explained that Article 130 grants the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional interpretation, and when lower courts encounter ambiguous or conflicting provisions, they must refer the matter to the Supreme Court.
He indicated that this allows the Court to clarify the law and ensure compliance. “The law says to stay the process and refer a matter to the Supreme Court for it to interpret the provision and refer back to where the matter came from…”
He clarified that the judiciary does not intervene in parliamentary matters on its own; it must be invited, as seen when NPP MPs involved the judiciary.
“So it is not by their own decision to interfere,” he noted, adding that voluntary interference would constitute an abuse of power.
Politicized Issues Obscure Fundamental Matters
Furthermore, Esq. Carruthers Tetteh highlighted that the problem with judicial intervention arises when issues are politicized, distracting from core matters.
However, he assured that the judiciary remains impartial and applies the law regardless of the parties involved. “When the issue comes to them in court, they will look at the law and apply it.”
He emphasized that political matters are mainly addressed in parliament, not in the courtroom.
“…the judiciary is mandated to work independently. That is why even with their appointments when the president appoints them, they are vetted by members of parliament which comprise both political parties or all political parties being part of the committee.”
Esq. Caruthers Tetteh
He expressed concern that political parties often prioritize their agendas over core issues, using parliamentary disputes to rally support.
The astute lawyer indicated that even when aware that the Speaker’s decision may be correct, the NPP may still engage in political maneuvering to influence public perception.
Despite these tactics, Tetteh assured that the judiciary remains unaffected by political games, stressing parties have the option to seek a review if they disagree with the court’s decision. “We need the judiciary to run to ensure that there is peace in the system.”
Esq. Tetteh emphasized that taking a matter to court does not guarantee the Speaker’s decision will be overturned; if the Speaker acted within the law, the court is likely to affirm it.
He noted that if one is confident their actions align with the law, there should be no concern. “If you know that what you are doing is within the law, then fair enough.”
Defining Roles: Judiciary and Parliament
Moreover, Esq. Carruthers Tetteh stressed the importance of clearly defining the roles of the judiciary and parliament to maintain balance.
If concerns arise that the judiciary is overstepping, he suggested revisiting constitutional provisions to specify the limits of judicial involvement in parliamentary affairs.
“I think, when we do that, we will go a long way to help our governance system. Whenever the judiciary is called upon, especially in matters of injunction they can only work within the law. If the law gives them the power to do so, they have the right to do so.
“The court will not just grant an injunction because it has been brought before it. There are certain criteria the court looks at, whether the person bringing it has the capacity or whether the refusal of the injunction will create more problem, whether it is necessary to grant the injunction to preserve the status quo.”
Esq. Caruthers Tetteh
Esq. Tetteh further stated that if the court adheres to established principles when granting or denying injunctions, it can avoid overstepping its bounds.
He emphasized that the judiciary must operate strictly within these principles and consider the required elements.
According to him, if the judiciary goes beyond these guidelines without proper justification, it could pose a problem.
Ensuring that the judiciary follows these principles, Tetteh indicated, will help maintain judicial restraint and proper adherence to the law.
Addressing misconceptions about the Supreme Court’s swift response to the NPP’s application, Esq. Tetteh explained that the NPP’s ex parte application was lawful. “This action was entirely within the law.”
He emphasized the need for public education to prevent misunderstandings, as such legal proceedings can be misinterpreted by those without legal knowledge, leading to unnecessary confusion.
Tetteh also advised that politicians without a legal background should refrain from presenting themselves as legal experts.
“Being a politician does not make you a lawyer. And vice versa. So that when the politician is speaking, he should speak to only facts that they know. Not the law that they have not read. I don’t think any judge would do that or any judge would sacrifice his or her reputation on the altar of politics.”
Esq. Caruthers Tetteh
Public Perception of Judiciary Improved
Additionally, Esq. Carruthers Tetteh acknowledged that public perception of the judiciary, especially after Anas’ recent exposé, has been mixed, though he believes it has improved.
He noted that court proceedings are public, allowing people to see evidence directly.
However, the lawyer pointed out that when judgments contradict expectations without clear reasoning, it fuels biased perceptions.
He urged better legal education and transparency from judges while noting that politicians often exploit these issues for public sympathy.
Tetteh warned that if the judiciary frequently overturns parliamentary decisions, it could disrupt parliamentary functions and damage the credibility of both institutions. “Because if it so appears that anytime a decision is overturned by the judiciary, there are civil claims.”
Esq. Tetteh stated that frequent judicial interference in parliamentary matters could create a negative perception.
He indicated that it might suggest either that Parliament is not effectively carrying out its duties, necessitating constant Supreme Court intervention, or that the judiciary is overstepping its boundaries by repeatedly overturning parliamentary decisions.
READ ALSO: Moldova Goes To The Polls
