Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com
By William Yaw Owusu
Thursday, July 16, 2014
The proposed amendment of
certain aspects of the 1992 Constitution could be in jeopardy following a suit
filed against the Attorney General by Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare.
According to the Professor of
law, the President has no power to set up a commission to initiate amendments
or draft amendment bills to the Constitution as is currently being done.
He therefore, filed the suit at
the Supreme Court challenging the executive arm of government for what he
described as the President’s usurpation of parliamentary powers and
misappropriation Article 278(1).
The plaintiff wants a declaration
that “the Constitution Review Commission of Inquiry Instrument, 2010, C.I. 64
is null, void and of no effect as it contravenes the letter and spirit of
Article 289(1) of the 1992 Constitution, in that the effect, if not the
intended purpose, of C.I. 64 is to usurp powers that the 1992 Constitution
expressly, exclusively and specifically conferred to Parliament.”
He wants another declaration
that the powers granted to the President under Article 278(1) to “appoint a
commission of inquiry into any matter of public interest” does not include the
power to establish a commission to review and propose amendment bills to the
Constitution where such powers to review and propose amendment bills to the
Constitution have been expressly, exclusively and specifically conferred to
Parliament.
The plaintiff further wants a
declaration that Article 278(1) does not grant the President “an all-purpose
commissioning power” but only gives him the power to commission an independent
inquiry to investigate and establish the truth relating to an entity’s affairs,
activities or some specific occurrence that is in the public interest.
Prof. Asare also wants a the
highest court of the land that the Constitution Review Implementation Committee
(CRIC) set up by the President to finalize amendment bills for both the
entrenched and non-entrenched provisions is alien to the Constitution.
The plaintiff wants the court
to declare that any of CRIC’s activities directed at finalizing amendment bills
that touch on any and all aspects of the Constitution, whether entrenched or
non-entrenched, are unlawful, unconstitutional, impermissible, null, void and
of no effect.
He further wants a
declaration that the 1992 Constitution can be amended only in accordance with
the express provisions of Chapter 25 of the Constitution and that the
President’s role in any such constitutional amendments is limited to the
ministerial tasks stipulated in Article 290(6), 291(4) and 292(a).
He also wants a declaration
that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution as stipulated in Article
289(1) is plenary and exclusive and another declaration that Parliament’s power
to amend the Constitution as stipulated in Article 289(1) cannot be delegated
to or usurped by the President.
Prof. Asare wants an order
directing the President, the Chairman and Members of the Constitution Review
Commission (CRC), the Chairman and Members of the CRIC, the Attorney General
and their assigns to “permanently cease and desist from taking any actions that
seek to amend or otherwise disturb the Constitution in so far as such actions
are inconsistent with Chapter 25 of the Constitution.”
Summary of Particulars
It is the contention of the
Plaintiff that “the Constitution can only be amended by its terms” and added
that “Parliament is the sole body that can initiate, consider and propose amendments
to the Constitution.”
“Parliament’s power to amend
the Constitution is not only plenary and exclusive but also cannot be delegated
to or usurped by the President, the Commission (CRC) or the Committee (CRIC).
The President’s role in constitutional amendment is limited to the ministerial
task of giving assent to bills properly passed by Parliament,” the plaintiff
averred.
No comments:
Post a Comment