Lecturer of Political Science at the University of Ghana (UG), Professor Ransford Gyampo has indicated that the Parliament of Ghana is superior to the President, arguing that even though not every Ghanaian voted for the President, every Ghanaian is represented in Parliament.
He stated that should Parliament ever decide to work against the President, the Presidency would be unable to operate properly, especially in a hung Parliament such as Ghana’s. Given the death of the Ejisu Member of Parliament from the Majority caucus, he opined that it is very risky for the President to be in enmity with Parliament.
“We are used to winning elections and dominating on the floor of Parliament so it appears it’s very difficult for President Akufo Addo to appreciate what time it is. It is not the kind of Parliament that can be relied upon to rubberstamp your decision”.
Professor Ransford Gyampo
Furthermore, he argued that it is especially difficult for the President to have full Parliament support because the Speaker of Parliament is from another political party. He noted that sometimes even with a hung Parliament, the President can execute his will because the Executive controls resources, however, with a bipartisan agreement, Parliament can limit the power of the President.
Prof. Gyampo also indicated that undermining the power of the general populace just because the President is now a ‘lame duck’ does not bode well for the NPP’s electoral fortunes. He advised that the NPP must find a way to curb the impact of the President’s action on the party’s performance at the polls in December.
He called on the various Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and churches to speak against the attempt of the exiting President to torpedo the will of the people. “I disagree respectively with those who are speaking in support of the Presidential hypocrisy and insincerity in attempting to show some judicial autonomy”, he added.
The Political Scientist indicated that the President’s sudden respect for the independence of the Judiciary, while he had before disregarded the authority and autonomy of the judicial body, is insincere.
Presidency And Judiciary
Moreover, Prof. Ransford Gyampo argued that matters in court, like the recent suit filed against the anti-LGBTQ+ bill, should not immobilize the President and make him ineffective in implementing a decision taken by the generality of the citizenry.
He indicated that the Judicial Review component of the court’s function ensures that the court can review the bill in question, if passed into law, and render it unconstitutional or null and void, alleging that the President’s excuse of using the court as the rationale behind his refusal to assent to the bill is not substantive.
“It creates an impression that the President is trying to outsmart the people of Ghana but Mr. President, we have seen through what you are doing. You want to hide behind the process to circumvent and undermine the expression of the general will simply because you are exiting and you don’t care posterity will judge you.
Professor Ransford Gyampo
More so, Prof. Gyampo opined that Ghanaians are overly cautious with their dealing with the judiciary due to the possibility of being sued by them.
He noted that judges in the past have been abused by the public for conducting their professional duties hence the immunity they seem to enjoy to ensure their safety. He argued, however, that their immunity should not be a license for judicial tyranny and unaccountability.
Prof. Gyampo also noted that the judges should have known that granting the Attorney General an expedited trial regarding the Parliament vs. Dafeamekpor case would create a perception of bias in the psyche of ignorant people.
He argued that to ensure judicial accountability, the application of the law by the judiciary must be done in a way that respects the moods and sensibilities of the people. He opined that the role of the judiciary must not only be confined to the law but also be mindful of public mood and sensitivity.
Conclusively, Prof. Gyampo argued that the rigid application of the laws without taking into consideration the moods and sensibility of the public is a threat to judicial independence which also ushers the judges into a regime of robots without the ability to be sensitive to human emotions.
