In a Facebook post, Professor Kwasi Prempeh, Executive Director of the Ghana Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana) and a private legal practitioner, has responded to Speaker Alban Bagbin’s comments, asserting that it is the Speaker who lacks an understanding of the constitutional process, not President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.
The backdrop to this exchange is the ongoing stalemate between Parliament and the Executive over the refusal of President Akufo-Addo to sign three bills presented to his office. These bills include the Criminal Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2023, Criminal Offences (Amendment) (No.2) Bill, 2023, and the Armed Forces (Amendment) Bill, 2023.
According to Speaker Bagbin, the President’s refusal to sign these private member’s bills signifies a misunderstanding of constitutional processes. He argued that without a judicial determination from the Supreme Court, the President’s unilateral assessment of unconstitutionality lacks legal standing. Bagbin suggested that seeking a judicial review from the Supreme Court would have been the appropriate response if there were genuine concerns about the constitutionality of Parliament’s legislative action.
Professor Prempeh, however, countered this argument, stating that the President is not obligated to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion before vetoing a bill on constitutional grounds. He emphasized that if the President independently believes that Parliament exceeded its constitutional authority in passing a particular bill, he has the right to veto it.
“In short, the only check against the President’s use of his veto power is a political one, in the form of a legislative override by a supermajority; it is not a judicial one.”
Professor Kwasi Prempeh
He further clarified that the President cannot be compelled judicially to sign a bill into law, highlighting that any misunderstanding lies with the Speaker, not the President. Prof. Prempeh’s argument hinges on the principle that the President’s veto power is a political check, subject to a legislative override by a two-thirds majority, not a legal check through judicial intervention.
Madina lawmaker Francis Xavier Sosu, who sponsored the bills, joined the criticism, accusing President Akufo-Addo of acting unconstitutionally. He contended that it is the Speaker’s role to confront the President about acting in violation of the constitution.
The impasse between the Executive and Parliament underscores the complexities of the constitutional framework and the delicate balance between the different branches of government in Ghana’s democracy. As legal and political experts weigh in, the debate raises important questions about the separation of powers, the role of the judiciary, and the checks and balances embedded in the nation’s constitutional processes.
This disagreement highlights the need for a nuanced understanding of constitutional principles and a constructive dialogue between the branches of government to navigate such constitutional intricacies. The ultimate resolution may come through a political process, with Parliament considering the bills again and attempting to pass them with a two-thirds majority, thus challenging the President’s veto power on a political front.
The Criminal Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2023, and the Criminal Offences (Amendment) (No.2) Bill, 2023, hold significant implications for Ghana’s legal landscape. These bills, currently at the center of a political and constitutional debate between Parliament and the Executive, address critical amendments to the existing criminal law framework.
The proposed amendments may encompass a range of issues, such as redefining offenses, adjusting penalties, or introducing new legal provisions. Given the sensitivity of criminal legislation, any amendments would likely impact law enforcement, judicial proceedings, and citizens’ rights.
The Armed Forces (Amendment) Bill, 2023, adds another layer to this legal discourse. Amendments in this bill could affect the jurisdiction and functioning of the armed forces, potentially influencing matters of national security and defense.
The controversy surrounding these bills reflects not only their legal intricacies but also their potential social, political, and constitutional ramifications. As Parliament and the Executive navigate this legislative terrain, the nation awaits the resolution of this dispute, anticipating the broader consequences these amendments may have on Ghana’s legal system and the protection of citizens’ rights.
READ MORE: President’s Withholding of Assent: A Constitutional Quandary
