By Nelson Kofi Akatey
The President, His Excellency John Dramani Mahama has within the first 120 days of his Administration taken the giant step towards redeeming one of his campaign promises to the good people of Ghana: To continue with the review of the 1992 constitution and see to the implementation of the recommendations.
To this end, the President within a few days of coming into power assembled a team of experts to begin the process.
The eight-member committee chaired by Professor Kwasi Prempeh, the Executive Director of the Center for Democratic Governance (CDD) includes the following membership: Dr. Godwin Djokoto, Mrs. Charlotte Osei, (Former Chairperson of the Electoral Commission), Dr. Esi Ansah, Justice Sophia Adinyirah, (Retired Supreme Court Judge), and Professor Kofi Karikari.
The others are Dr. Rainer Akumperigeya and Ibrahim Tanko Amidu.
Per the terms of reference, the objective of the committee is to identify gaps and challenges in the implementation of the previous Constitutional review works done by the 2010 and 2023 Commissioners. It also has the mandate to engage all relevant stakeholders whose input would play a key role in the overall process.
The committee has five months to complete the tasks and submit its reports to the government for consideration. In the coming days, the doors of the Committee will be opened to the general public to take their input. As mentioned earlier, this is not the first time such an exercise has been carried out with the objective of reviewing the Constitution.
Unfortunately, however, previous attempts could not see the light of day.
Conflicting opinions
As might be expected, opinions are varied on the subject matter.
There are those who hold the view that the review is too early and the Constitution should be given more time to mature and grow before attempting any comprehensive review.
They cite the case of other Jurisdictions where reviews were done to their Constitutions after fifty years or more.
However, on the contrary, the other school of thought believes the review is timely and apt.
Indeed, they point out that after 32 years of testing the strengths and the weaknesses of the document, and looking at the shortfalls, the time to review it is now. They further argue the review is timely and necessary to make the Constitution more responsive to the needs of Ghanaians.
They hold the view that just like any other document, the Constitution is a living document and its provisions must reflect the realities of the time that build a more inclusive society inspite of our divergent views, political and religious persuasions and cultural relativity.
The debate goes on.
Making reference to Chapter 1(I) of the Constitution, the proponents of the review opine that “the sovereignty of Ghana resides in the people of Ghana in whose name and for whose welfare the powers of government are to be exercised in their manner and within the limit laid down on this Constitution”.
Opinion polls:
Although the Committee is yet to complete its task, opinion polls suggest that most Ghanaians would like to see many changes or amendments to it including but not limited to the following.
Appointment of Ministers: Article 78(I) states – “Ministers of state shall be appointed by the President with the prior approval of Parliament from among Members of Parliament or persons qualified to be elected as Members of Parliament, except that the majority of Ministers of state shall be appointed from among Members of Parliament”.
The bone of contention here is that this provision erodes the oversight responsibility of Parliament over the Executive by members of any ruling government since they (members) cannot criticize their own government policies and would want to catch the “eyes of the President” for ministerial appointments.
Article 8 which focuses on Dual Citizenship is also most likely to feature prominently in the recommendations for review.
Article 276(1) on Chieftaincy could also be very much considered for review.
It states “A Chief shall not take part in active party politics and any Chief wishing to do so and seeking election to Parliament shall abdicate his stool or skin”.
Active party politics in this context remains undefined.
Article 89 makes provision for the establishment of a Council of State with its mandate and functions. Has this provision outlived its relevance? Again, opinions are varied. The debate concludes on the absolute powers of the President at any given point in time making almost all the political appointments.
Indeed, many have applauded the President for taking the bull by the horns, having the political courage to address the issue of the review of the 1992 Constitution which has been on the front burner for some time even though there is the probability is that the review may have some political setbacks which may affect his four years term in office.
