Guest posts

Strengthen democracy by allowing Members of Parliament to retain their seats even when they cross carpet Another way in which the 1992 Constitution undermines constitutionalism according to Prof. Gyampo, is in the area of MPs cross-carpeting. Prof Gyampo He indicated that article 97 (1) (g) provides that “a member of parliament shall vacate his seat in parliament if he leaves the party of which he was a member at the time of his election to parliament to join another party or seeks to remain in parliament as an independent member.” This provision according to the presenter, was to deal with the mischievous situation under the First Republic (1960-1966) when President Nkrumah lured MPs to cross-carpet to his party and gave them appointments while those who resisted were detained (Awoonor, 1990). The problem with the above constitutional provision according to the presenter is that, it expressly forbids MPs to behave independently on the floor of parliament and to vote according to their conscience. Speaking on the topic “Challenges Identified in Operating the 1992 Constitution,” Prof. Samuel O. Gyandoh of the Temple University in Philadelphia, USA, described a constitution as a living organism that must grow with the times and like human conditions there was more room for improvement. “We can adapt the constitution to changing times by timely amendments and judicial interpretations,” he said. Prof. Gyandoh said compared with the previous constitutions of Ghana, the 1992 Constitution was unique in terms of the structure of government machinery that it has created. He mentioned the Independence Constitution of 1957, First Republican Constitution of 1960, the Second Republican Constitution of 1969, and the Third Republican Constitution of 1979 as constitutions that preceded the 1992 Constitution. Prof. Gyandoh noted that the 1979 constitution separated the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary, and provided a flexible system of checks and balances. He said the 1979 Constitution, however, abandoned the “unstable cabinet system of government under which the idea of ministerial responsibility to parliament was subjected to national election.” Comparing the 1992 Constitution with the 1979 Constitution in terms of Executive Presidency and Parliamentary Governance, Prof. Gyandoh noted that while the 1979 Constitution required a Member of Parliament nominated for ministerial appointment by the President to resign from Parliament, the 1992 Constitution provided that the majority of ministers of state should be appointed from Parliament. “This unnecessarily weakens Parliament while correspondingly creating what looks like an imperial Presidency,” he lamented. Prof. Gyandoh said the provision had skewed the architecture of the Constitution but he expressed the hope that it could be easily corrected by restoring balance and proportions to the 1992 Constitution. He suggested that “We can simply remove Article 78(1) from the Constitution and then take care of any consequential refinement of the text to conform to the excision”. Prof Gyandoh said what “we do not need as a country is another Constitutional Commission, Constitutional Assembly or Committee of Experts to draw up new Constitution for a future Fifth Republic of Ghana”.He said it was not proper for any group of people to claim to have reached the pinnacle of political wisdom to dictate to generations yet unborn.Speaking on the theme, “Constitutional Review in Ghana”, he said there was always room for improvement of the human condition, and was optimistic that a review of relevant portions of the 1992 Constitution would deepen the country’s democratisation process.He also touched on some discrepancies bordering on dual citizenship — article 8 and 9 (5) and indemnity — Act 527, 1996, which he said, had raised unresolved problems of legitimacy for the nation.On dual citizenship, Prof Gyandoh said citizenship laws should be inclusive and not exclusive, as in a situation where a person with dual citizenship could be a Minister and Member of Parliament but not Secretary to the Cabinet, or Ambassador or Chief of Defence Staff, Inspector-General of Police, Commissioner of Customs, Excise and Preventive Service or the Director of the Immigration Service.On indemnity, he said the 1992 Constitution should take into account the fact that the era of the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) rule was a military rule in order to preserve the spirit and enduring values enshrined in the Constitution. 3.0 THE SCOPE AND IMPORT OF ARTICLE 97(1)(g) OF THE 1992 CONSTITUTION OF GHANAArticle 97(1)(g) of the Constitution, 1992 provides thus:A member of Parliament shall vacate his seat in Parliament:… (g) if he leaves the party of which he was a member at the time of his election to Parliament to join another party or seeks to remain in Parliament as an independent member.Having reproduced in full length the provisions of article 97(1)(g) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, I shall attempt to delve into its scope, meaning and purpose, and the circumstances under which it may be invoked.To begin with, the determination of the scope and import of the afore-stated provision would demand a true and proper interpretation of same.It is important to note that there are no hard and fixed rules to the interpretation of a national constitution, like ours, the 1992 Constitution. The various cannons of interpretations that have evolved over the years are not binding on the courts. Any method of interpretation which would give effect to the intent of the framers of the constitution, without leaving room for manifest absurdity would suffice.In tandem with the above, Lord Reid said in Maunsell v Olins [1975]1 All ER 16 at 18, HL, in relation to the rules of interpretation thus: “They are not rules in the ordinary sense of having some binding force. They are our servants, not our masters. They are aids to construction: presumptions or pointers. Not infrequently one “rule” points in one direction, another in a different direction. In each case we must look at all relevant circumstances and decide as a matter of judgment what weight to be attached to any particular ‘rule’.”Same view was held by Date-Bah JSC in Asare v. Attorney General, WRIT NO. 3/2002) 28 JAN 2004, where he opined that the rules of interpretation are not the ratio decidendi of a case, but they are mainly aids and