Fruitless ceremonial

Following the public lecture organised by the Danquah Institute to discuss and analyse the implications of the Supreme Court judgement in the presidential election petition, there are some individuals who have condemned the event as an exercise in futility.  That fits into the thinking and philosophy of Prof Wole Soyinka, that “post-mortem is for quacks and chroniclers, who fail at divination”.

But, for as long as we are human, there is no activity that must not be subjected to analysis as a guide for the future.  Indeed, the Supreme Court judges are human and, therefore, they are not immuned from making errors in judgement.  That is why the law allows the process of appeal, but because there must be an end to litigation, matters have to be settled.

Thankfully, in the matter of the presidential election petition, Nana Addo-Dankwa Akufo Addo, displayed exceptional statesmanship when he resolved that the petitioners will not seek any review of the decision.

That is another reason why people should not get unduly exercised or irked up about the intellectual discourse and dissection of the judgement.  After all, the judgement from the presidential election petition will be reported upon and used as teaching material.

But my primary interest is not the judgement on the petition, which moved away from the two issues set out by the court at the beginning of the trial as to whether or not there were any infractions and the impact of the infractions on the results, to the claims on the individual infractions.

In general, however, as was pointed out at the lecture by the Danquah Institute, even the three judges who upheld the three claims of the petitioners, over-voting, voting without biometric verification and absence of signature of presiding member, equally did not do justice to the petition, when they held that there should be another voting only in the polling stations in dispute, when in affirming those claims, it meant that no candidate secured more than 50 per cent of the votes cast, the threshold for declaring a legitimate winner.

My beef, with those who think that the judgement of the Supreme Court cannot be subjected to any analysis, as if it is sacrosanct, stems from the unproductive and fruitless exercise of swearing-in the Speaker of Parliament to act as President in the absence of the President and Vice-President from the country.

When the late Hon. Speaker Peter Ala Adjetey, embarked on the course of the imperial coronation, there were many who thought the exercise was needless, because the mere absence of the President and the Vice-President from the country cannot be interpreted as their inability to perform their functions.

Some patriotic Ghanaians took the matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation and then as with the presidential election petition, the judgement of the court expanded inability to perform their functions to include absence from the country.

Since then, Hon. Speaker Ala Adjetey, Hon Speaker Joyce Bamford-Addo and now Hon Speaker Doe Adjaho, have all been sworn-in to act for the President, who at the same time, was performing his functions as such, albeit outside the shores of Ghana.

If at the time the court so ruled, we had subjected the decision to critical analysis and debate as we are doing with the judgement on the presidential election pPetition, we may have found more productive solution than the fruitless swearing ins, with the attendant precedents and protocol details, at great cost to tax payers, but of no functional value.

For, what does it mean to engage the Speaker to swear the oath of office as acting President, when in reality, the elected President and Vice-President are performing their constitutional duties and riding under the national flag of Ghana?  If indeed, it means anything, can such an acting President undertake any act in the name of the republic?  Could Hon. Doe Adjaho do anything without prior consultation with President John Dramani Mahama?

We must begin to analyse decisions of the Supreme Court, those that help advance the cause of the nation and people, and those that set the clock of progress backwards.  After all, in those situations that governments have not been pleased with decisions or judgements of the Supreme Court, remedial actions were instituted.

Those who are interested in knowing will recollect that when the matter of freedom of assembly was upheld after the 1992 presidential election disagreements degenerated into street protests and demonstrations, the government, not pleased introduced legislation leading to the Public Order Act.

Again, when the Supreme Court, initially ruled that the Fast Track High Court was unlawful, the government justifiably sought a review, which reversed the judgement.

If governments reviewed judgements of the Supreme Court and took actions they considered necessary to seek redress, why should citizens be condemned or disowned for daring to analyse a judgement to proffer their viewpoints.  The Supreme Court judgement that approved the coronation of Speakers as acting Presidents is one such judgement that is dysfunctional.

By Yaw Boadu Ayeboafoh/Daily Graphic/Ghana