In a thought-provoking statement, legal practitioner and activist Osagyefo Mawuse Oliver Barker-Vormawor has challenged the widely held belief that only the Supreme Court has the exclusive power to interpret the Constitution.

His theory of “interpretative view” versus “interpretative verdict” seeks to reframe the relationship between ordinary citizens, decision-makers, and the judiciary, calling into question the scope and limitations of constitutional interpretation in Ghana’s legal system.

Barker-Vormawor began by dismantling what he sees as a legal fallacy—that only the Supreme Court is empowered to interpret the Constitution.

He emphasized that such a belief undermines the intellectual and legal agency of individuals and institutions alike.

“Even worse are those who assert that everyone else can apply it but cannot interpret it. How do I apply a Chinese language document though I don’t understand it?
“To be incompetent to apply anything; we must first read and understand it. To understand anything is to have interpreted it, either passively or actively”.
Oliver Barker-Vormawor, legal practitioner and activist

Oliver Barker-Vormawor, thus, insisted that interpretation is an intrinsic part of constitutional engagement, and not the exclusive domain of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s Limited Jurisdiction

Oliver Barker-Vormawor further clarified that the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution is not as far-reaching as commonly perceived.

The Court’s jurisdiction is contingent on the existence of a dispute—specifically, a dispute between at least two parties over the meaning of a constitutional provision.

“Its jurisdiction arises only where there is a dispute,” he explained, stressing that the Court does not serve as an advisory body providing legal opinions or guidance on constitutional provisions in the absence of conflict.

He further noted that for a dispute to arise, both parties must already hold individual interpretations of the Constitution, which then come into conflict.

“That is why you cannot go to them for advice on how to interpret a provision of the Constitution,” Oliver Barker-Vormawor added, challenging the misconception that the Supreme Court acts as a general authority on constitutional meaning.

The Distinction Between “Interpretative View” and “Interpretative Verdict”

To untangle the dynamics of constitutional interpretation, Oliver Barker-Vormawor introduced a critical distinction between what he terms an “interpretative view” and an “interpretative verdict.”

According to him, everyone—including individual citizens, politicians, and decision-makers—is entitled to hold an interpretative view of the Constitution.

However, only the Supreme Court can issue an interpretative verdict, which is a formal and binding judgment on the meaning of a constitutional provision.

He pointed out that while an interpretative view is lawful by presumption, it remains subject to change or affirmation through a subsequent interpretative verdict by the Court.

He also argued that once an interpretative verdict is issued, it becomes the lawful interpretation until it is replaced by a new verdict, thereby finalizing the legal interpretation of the provision in question.

What Happens When Interpretative Views Collide?

Oliver Barker-Vormawor went on to address the issue of what happens when different interpretative views clash.

“When two interpretative views collide; the interpretative view of a person in the decision-making position prevails,” he wrote, emphasizing the temporary supremacy of the decision-maker’s interpretation until a formal interpretative verdict is sought and issued by the Supreme Court.

Commenting on the recent controversies that have characterized Speaker’ Bagbin’s declaration of four parliamentary seats vacant, Oliver Barker-Vormawor contended that both Speaker Bagbin and Hon. Afenyo-Markin were entitled to their interpretative views of the Constitution.

However, he opined that as the decision-maker, Speaker Bagbin’s view legally prevailed over those of his colleagues, adding that it even prevails over the views of ordinary citizens unless and until an interpretative verdict from the Supreme Court overturns it.

Recognizing the Authority of Interpretative Views

Oliver Barker-Vormawor concluded his theory by reinforcing the legitimacy of individual interpretative views within the legal framework.

He suggested that while individuals may disagree with a decision-maker’s interpretation, they must still recognize its legal standing until a formal interpretative verdict is rendered.

“I do not legally share Bagbin’s constitutional view, but I recognize that it prevails over mine presumptively”, Oliver Baraker-Vormawor declared.

Additionally, Oliver Barker-Vormawor highlighted that while individuals can approach the Supreme Court to seek an interpretative verdict, they cannot do so because the decision-maker was not entitled to hold an interpretative view.

The right to hold an interpretative view, even if contested, according to him, remains firmly established in constitutional practice.

In summary, Oliver Barker-Vormawor’s reflections challenge the conventional understanding of constitutional interpretation, advocating for a broader acknowledgement of individual interpretative rights while underscoring the Supreme Court’s role in providing final interpretative judgments.

His theory underscores a more nuanced, participatory approach to constitutional law, where interpretation is not solely the purview of the judiciary but a fundamental aspect of civic engagement and decision-making.