Frivolous Swear-Ins Are Another Of The Nuisance Legacies Of The NDC

Rather than feeling testy about the constant and frivolous swearing in of the Speaker of Parliament anytime that both the President and the Vice-President are out of the country, the leaders of the National Democratic Congress’ Parliamentary Minority will have to learn to live with their own constitutional handicraft. It was the Rawlings-led government of the Provisional/National Democratic Congress (P/NDC) that single-handedly crafted the 1992 Republican Constitution when, as I reliably understand it, the then ideological and later political opposition constituting the Adu-Boahen-led New Patriotic Party (NPP) boycotted the Constituent Assembly. I have yet to fully acquaint myself with the details of the events leading to the boycott.

It was, however, quite refreshing to read a recent news report, in which the U.S.-based academic who led what I then termed as frivolous litigation over the rampant swearing in of the Speaker of Parliament as Acting or Interim President anytime that both the substantive President and Vice-President of our Republic traveled outside the country, was quoted to be saying that the rampancy of the swear-ins was unnecessary and increasingly becoming absurd. He did not put his change of mind and/or opinion in exactly those words, but the meaning and intent of his observation were unmistakably so. I suppose what worries the National Democratic Congress’ Parliamentary Minority has to do with constantly having to interrupt their weekend schedules of festivities and socializing to return to Parliament to witness this boring routine over and over again.

In a robust and progressively functioning and politically mature democratic culture, the automatic assumption of the Presidency by the Speaker whenever both the President and Vice-President were out of the country would be one beyond dispute and/or debate. The decision by the Parliamentary Minority Leaders to seek a “review of Article 60 (11) of the Constitution from the Supreme Court is rather odd, if not downright bizarre. It is odd because by its very function and nature, the Supreme Court is only mandated to “interpret” the law, not to review or revise the same. Rather, it is Parliament itself that has the mandate to review and amend the law. Under the 1992 Constitution, as I understand it, the President can also table a motion for the review and amendment of the Constitution by Parliament, with the significant input of the general public, of course, through a series of public hearings.

*Visit my blog at: kwameokoampaahoofe.wordpress.com Ghanaffairs