“You may live in a small town, but that doesn't mean you have to get afflicted with one of the deadliest STD's - small town disease, which symptoms are repetitive droid-like behaviour and a lack and shortage mentality”

— Robert J. Braathe

I take some careful inspiration from the above quote in reflecting on recent governance activities transpiring in the land of my birth.

As the title of this write-up suggests, the repetitive swearing-in of the Speaker of Parliament in fulfilment of the current position of the Supreme Court interpretation of Article 60(11) of our constitution, is making a mockery of our Presidential system.

We seem to be the only nation having a weekly President and a former President sworn-in again and again, whose Presidential term limit is infinite within a Speakers four-year term.

Our Supreme Court in Professor Ansah Asare v Attorney General failed the nation on this very important issue by thinking like a small town that decides to inflict itself with the deadly disease common to small towns. It refused to accept that while it closes its eyes to the world outside of itself, the reality is that there are bigger cities out there who play in the same game as ourselves.

Here’s a portion of that ruling by Date-Bah, JSC.

“My conclusion is that the purposive interpretation to be given to article 60(11) is that where both the President and the Vice-President are absent from Ghana, they are to be regarded as "unable to perform the functions of the President" and thus the Speaker is obliged to perform those functions.  On the facts of this case, it is unnecessary to decide whether the Speaker, when acting for the President, is vested with all the President’s functions or only those which cannot be effectively performed whilst the President is absent from Ghana”.

My problem with the above reasoning that has become law is that;

The Supreme Court in its thinking, limits the duties and functions of the President and in essence his/her capacity to rule, in spite of the known global roles and need to travel for them, to his/her physical presence in Ghana. A totally difficult logic to understand.

Secondly, I see in this ruling, the origination of a potential conflict between the sitting President and the acting President while the President proper is away in terms of there being a power play or struggle between them. I mean if the Speaker while acting directs a minister to do something that the elected President clearly doesn’t or wouldn’t agree with which the minister knows, must the minister go ahead to obey the ‘overnight’ President or seek confirmation from the out of town President, since the Supreme Court clothe the acting with the full powers of the elected President?.

The drama especially becomes a big worrying joke on us as a serious people because, when the Speaker is sworn-in to act in busy Presidential periods, even when the substantive President just returns to the country at night in between his trips to repack for another trip the next morning, his touching down on Ghanaian soil brings him within the jurisdiction and hence an instant expiration of the Speakers previously sworn powers till he, Speaker is sworn in again in the morning after the President flies out, since the president CANNOT be a guest president at any time whilst the Speaker remains a sworn acting President as long as the substantive one is on Ghanaian soil.

For the Ghanaian who went to bed knowing that our Speaker had been sworn-in earlier in the day to act as President and who is not aware of the substantive President’s late night arrival in the country, witnessing another early morning swearing-in of the same Speaker, would find such governance practice very frustratingly tedious to comprehend.

I think we should take a second look at this clause in the constitution and how limited it’s been interpreted, as its underlining reasons born out of our history of emergency take-overs and lack of real-time Presidential decision making when away, has been overtaken by events of advances in modern-day governance and technology.

How does the president being away on official government duties outside the country and NOT on a medical incapacitation leave, amount to his inability to perform his duty when the very trip he is on itself is a performance of his Presidential duty?.

Was the current President’s swearing-in of the Foreign Minister on an official trip to Addis Ababa an action emanating from incapacitation, when indeed the said Foreign Minister is still actively at post?.

If he wasn’t the President by the Supreme Court’s decision, then why is his Foreign Minister our official minister?. Are there inconsistencies in the law with respect to how 60(11) has been interpreted?.

The logic behind this narrow purposive interpretation or understanding of the said clause to mean that a President of Ghana must only be so if he/she is physically located on the soil of Ghana seems to me a rather disingenuous or laughable one for a nation of serious-minded people.

The best reasoning I can make of this logic if I were even to accept its ruling clearly, would be a scenario in which once the Office of the Speaker is so recognised as the third highest in the land, he is sworn in the first time both President and Vice go out of jurisdiction during the term of that Speaker’s tenure and this then stands him/her ready any day to act upon official notification of the absence of both President and Vice being out of jurisdiction. This avoids the boring repetitiveness, wasted time and resources to bring our Venerable Chief Justice and Speaker and all the senior government personnel that make up this charade when they should be busy leading us on rather serious issues.

Let’s sit up as a serious nation to cure this constitutional charade.

- Korshie Quashigah, UK.