Public Confidence in Justice Delivery: Strengthening Ghana’s Constitutional Democracy

In any democratic society, the justice system is built on one crucial element: public confidence. When citizens trust that their legal institutions operate fairly, transparently, and impartially, they are more likely to respect the rule of law and engage constructively in the democratic process. In Ghana, a country with a growing constitutional democracy, this confidence is increasingly being tested. The recent constitutional and parliamentary controversies, including the declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant by the Speaker of Parliament, have brought many critical issues to the fore. These debates raise important questions about the interplay between law, morality, and the role of our institutions.

As someone who is not a lawyer but has a background in communication, I have come to appreciate the need for a basic understanding of the law to engage with the pressing issues of our time. I may not be an officer of the court, but it is clear that our country is at a crossroads when it comes to justice delivery, the separation of powers, and the interpretation of the Constitution.

The Speaker's Decision and Public Reaction

The Ghanaian Speaker of Parliament’s recent decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant has triggered an intense public discourse. This decision, based on Article 97 of the Constitution, is seen by many as a potential flashpoint in our legal and political systems. Lawyer Edudzi Tameklo, speaking on TV3’s New Day morning show on 21st October, 2024, expressed concerns about the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the matter, noting that it sends the “wrong signals.”

Tameklo’s comments, alongside others, made me reflect on the delicate balance between law and morality in governance. The Supreme Court rightly pointed out in its ruling that the constituents of these vacated seats would suffer from the absence of parliamentary representation, which is indeed a critical issue. However, it raises further questions, such as why similar intervention was not applied in the case of the SALL (Santrokofi, Akpafu, Likpe, and Lolobi) constituencies, which have also been denied representation.

A Question of Consistency and Fairness

The SALL situation remains a glaring example of how inconsistencies in legal decisions can undermine public trust. If the court acknowledges that a lack of representation harms the people, why did it not step in during the SALL case to rectify that injustice? This leads many citizens, including myself, to wonder which institutions we can trust to act without fear or favor when things go wrong.

During the same TV3 show, Kwesi Kwarteng posed another vital question: Were the four MPs given a fair hearing before their seats were declared vacant? This touches on the broader issue of procedural fairness and the role of Parliament versus the courts in interpreting and enforcing constitutional provisions.

The Role of the Speaker and Constitutional Supremacy

Much of the current debate revolves around the role of the Speaker of Parliament and the supremacy of the Constitution. Article 97(1) of the Ghanaian Constitution grants the Speaker the power to declare seats vacant, but many legal minds, including Kwarteng, argue that recourse must ultimately come from the Constitution, not from Parliament. This argument is rooted in the principle of constitutional supremacy, which ensures that the highest law of the land prevails over any other legal or political body.

Andrew Appiah-Danquah of the Movement for Change also weighed in on this issue, suggesting that Ghana is indeed facing a constitutional crisis. He emphasized that the same Article 97(1) gives the Speaker the authority to declare seats vacant, but he questioned whether the Supreme Court has the power to halt or overrule such decisions. These discussions reflect a larger struggle: Are we fighting for party interests or the greater good of Ghana?

Constitutional Democracy and the Role of the Supreme Court

At the heart of this debate is the role of the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter in matters of constitutional interpretation. The Supreme Court is expected to be the mother of all legal powers in Ghana, tasked with safeguarding the Constitution and ensuring that its provisions are applied fairly and consistently. However, when decisions appear inconsistent, as in the case of the four MPs versus the SALL constituencies, it raises questions about the Court's ability to function as an independent and impartial institution.

Appiah-Danquah’s assertion that Ghana is beset by “needless constitutional crises” is a sentiment shared by many. The real challenge lies in ensuring that the Supreme Court not only has the legal authority but also the moral responsibility to intervene when necessary and provide clear, consistent guidance on constitutional matters.

Separation of Powers: Is It Truly Working?

The current situation also brings into question the effectiveness of the separation of powers (SOP) in Ghana. The principle of SOP is designed to prevent any one branch of government—executive, legislative, or judicial—from becoming too powerful. However, when we see instances where parliamentary decisions conflict with constitutional interpretation, we must ask whether the SOP is functioning as it should.

To use an analogy, a parent’s approach to resolving disputes between their children often reveals their true nature. In the same way, the way our institutions respond to conflicts between the branches of government determines their legitimacy and effectiveness.

The Importance of Education and Public Engagement

One of the key takeaways from this ongoing debate is the urgent need for greater public education on legal and constitutional matters. As a citizen, I believe that many of us feel alienated from these discussions because we lack a clear understanding of the law and its implications. Political rhetoric often adds to this confusion, as parties frame legal issues through the lens of partisan interests.

To build trust in our judicial system and improve public understanding, the Supreme Court of Ghana should consider creating digital platforms or a dedicated TV show in multiple languages to explain constitutional issues to the general public. This initiative would help ordinary Ghanaians—those without legal training—grasp the intricacies of legal decisions and avoid being swayed by partisan agendas.

Conclusion: Building a Justice System Rooted in Trust

Ghana’s constitutional democracy is still evolving, and it is natural that we will encounter challenges along the way. However, the future of our democracy depends on the ability of our institutions to act independently, impartially, and in the national interest. The Supreme Court, in particular, must continue to play a central role in interpreting and protecting the Constitution, ensuring that all Ghanaians—whether from SALL or any other constituency—have their rights upheld.

It is only through a justice system that is rooted in public confidence, transparency, and education that we can strengthen our democracy and ensure that it serves not just the interests of the powerful, but the needs of every citizen.