Re: Petition To Commence Impeachment Proceedings Against The Chief Justice

I am dismayed upon coming into terms with the petition from one Mensah Thompson whom Ghanaweb quote as one "who describes himself as the Director of the Alliance for Social Equity and Accountability (ASEPA). Their mischief is borne out of the fact that the apex court; Supreme Court of Ghana went ahead and made demand on the remaining balance of Ghc51 million from the businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome after African Court had given order to the government of Ghana to halt its attempt to seize the properties of woyome through the Ghana's courts.

First of all; virtue of Article 75 of the 1992 constitution makes Ghana a dualist state; that all agreements, Treaties, Charter entered into must be ratified by Parliament. Ghana has entered into so many international Treaties or Charter like the Vienna convention, the Geneva convention, etal. The dualist principle has it that International Law must be translated into the Domestic or National Laws. Without this, International Law does not exist as a law. If a state accepts a treaty but does not adapt its National law in order to conform to the treaty or does not create a national law explicitly incorporating the treaty, then it violates international law. As such, citizens cannot rely on it and Judges cannot apply it.

From the supra; Godfred Yeboah Dame and Justice Anin Yeboah who delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court were'nt far fetched when they posited that "Treaty setting up the African Court even though has been ratified by Ghana's Parliament, has not been incorporated into Ghana's laws" and "the businessman had failed to show any factual or legal basis for the court to hold on with its ruling" respectively, Ghanaweb.com. ASEPA has not adduced cogent evidence to show that the 1992 Constutution is under threat and must be defended as found in Article 3(a) and 3(4). The very provisions that ASEPA invoked in its petition in Article 40 (a) and 73 under the heading "International Relations" has one thing in common and that is, such International law shall be exercised in the national interest of Ghana. So even assuming Parliament has ratified the such treaty by Act of Parliament; combined Article 40 (a) and 73 respectively ensures that such treaty must be exercised in the best interest of Ghana. And the question is whether or not the interest of treaty or that of Ghana should stand?

ASEPA in a haste to compare the constitutional removal of former Electoral Commissioner with the current petition is like comparing apples with oranges. There is a sharp difference between the two! You allege Chief Justice, Attorney General as well as her deputy be removed on stated incompetence and for breaching some provisions. The objective question that comes into play is, whose duty is it to ensure that international laws are domesticated by Act of Parliament? If such constitutional duty lies at the doorstep of the Chief Justice, Attorney General and her Deputy,then this petition must be well attended to by the President using Article 146. But Judicial decisions has clearly demonstrated in the cases of Black Burn v Attorney General, Tuffuor v. Attorney General and JH Mensah v. Attorney General, where in all of the three cases the court alluded to the fact that the crown enters or sign treaties and Parliament makes laws in the former and the other two equally affirm same position. From the supra, ASEPA could have laid the blame to the arm of government entrusted to make laws and not the institution that seeks to interpret laws. Until such a time that our Legislature shall incorporate such relevant international laws into our municipal laws ASEPA and its agents or assigned officers must know the position of the law before invoking such constitutional provisions in a wrong environment.

*KYEI BAFFOUR*
*THE BLACK NATIONALIST*
[email protected]
13th November, 2018.