Some field evidence on what Ghanaians think of the 4th Republican Constitution

Judiciary

The judicial power is vested in the judiciary and in the exercise of that power that judiciary is subject only to the Constitution. Over the years, questions have arisen as to whether the absence of a ceiling on the number of Supreme Court Justices impaired the independence of the judiciary, whether the selective empanelling of Supreme Court justices by the Chief Justice encouraged opinion-shopping, and whether the Justices of the Supreme Court should be subject to mandatory retirement.

Approximately 91% of the respondents believe there should be a ceiling of the number of Justices of the Supreme Court. However, there is no consensus on what the ceiling should be. A plurality (33.1%%

 

 

Executive

The Constitution vests executive authority in the President who is elected, by universal suffrage, every fourth year. There has been debate about whether the 4 year tenure is too short, whether the President has excessive powers, whether the President should appoint ministers from Parliament, and the proper role of the Attorney General. To provide evidence on these issues, I posed 9 questions to the respondents. A significant majority of the respondents believe the 4 year term is adequate (70.6%), the President has excessive power (60.9%), and that the Attorney General’s position should be separated from the Minister of Justice (79%).

Approximately 83% of respondents did not believe that majority of ministers should be appointed from Parliament as currently required. On the issue of whether any ministers should be appointed from Parliament, 58% responded in the negative. An overwhelming majority of respondents (84%) believe a ceiling should be placed on the number of ministers. However, there is no consensus on what the ceiling should be. A plurality (40%) believes the ceiling should be more than 10 but no more than 20. About 80% believe that the ceiling should be less than 30.

The original 4^th Republican Constitution did not recognize dual citizenship. However, Parliament amended the Constitution to allow dual citizenship, while keeping the clause that banned citizens who hold multiple allegiances from serving as ministers intact. The exact meaning of the “multiple allegiance” clause is in doubt and has not been interpreted by the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, the clause has been interpreted on the “streets” to ban dual citizens. What do respondents think of this ban? Approximately 63.3% believe dual citizens should not be disqualified from serving as ministers.

Parliament

The constitution vests legislative authority in Parliament. Over the years, 4 key issues have been debated about Parliament. First, who is qualified to be a Member of Parliament (resulting in the unseating of George Nyimakan of the Wulensi constituency, the current dispute between the State and Sakande Adamu, the Bawku Central MP)? Second, what is the proper number of MPs in a changing population? Third, whether some MPs have served too long, and finally, whether MPs can or should initiate private bills?

Regarding the first issue, the Constitution stipulates that an MP should hail from or reside in a constituency for a specified period before being eligible to contest as an MP. Approximately 63% of the respondents agreed with the requirement that a Parliamentary candidate should hail from the Constituency that he seeks to serve. An even bigger majority (77.1%) agrees that a Parliamentary Candidate should reside in the constituency that he seeks to serve as an MP. Moreover, about 75.6% of respondents believe there should be a “minimum residency” requirement for those seeking to serve as MPs. That is, respondents are not in favor of allowing carpetbaggers (those who relocate to a constituency primarily to contest for MP) to run for seats, which is surprising considering the proclivity of Ghanaians to move around the country.  However, there is little consensus on what the minimum residency requirement should be. A plurality would want to see the minimum residency requirement set at 24 months prior to filing for nomination but 13% would be satisfied with a liberal residency requirement which will allow someone to contest as long as he is living in the constituency at the time that he is elected. As with ministers, an overwhelming majority (68.7%) believe dual citizens should not be disqualified from serving as MPs.

Approximately 75.6% believe a ceiling should be placed on the number of MPs but there is no clarity on what the ceiling should be. Approximately 30.2% will fix it at between 180 to 230 members while 26.3% will fix it at “no more than 140,” as it was in the Independence Constitution.

Which constitutional organ should determine the number of MPs assuming there is no ceiling as in the current constitution? Approximately 44.7% of the respondents believe the decision right should be allocated to the Electoral Commissioner but 41.8% believe it is Parliament that should decide this issue.  Only 5.4% believe this should be in the hands of the President. It is surprising that the respondents will allocate this decision right to Electoral Commissioner, an unelected and unaccountable bureaucratic. Perhaps, the willingness to endow the Electoral Commissioner with this key right flows from respondents’ evaluation of the Electoral Commissioner as the most effective Constitutional organ.

A surprising majority (58.2%) believe that current constitution does not allow an MP to initiate a Private Members bill in Parliament, even though there is no such language in the Constitution. While majority (57.9%) believes there should be a term limit on MPs, there is no agreement on what the limits should be with a plurality (26%) wanting a one term 4 year tenure.