Think tank IMANI Ghana is to hold a forum to debate the justifiability or otherwise of Ghana’s political system which sets up the winner of any general election as the sole distributor of ‘political and economic spoils’.
A statement by IMANI Ghana said the forum, to hold at its East Legon offices on Tuesday, September 30, 2014 from 4:30pm to 7:00pm, will have Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh of Seton Hall University School of Law, Newark, New Jersey and Mr Kofi Bentil, Business Strategy and Services Marketing Consultant, Lecturer and Lawyer respectively lead the debate for and against the motion.
The statement said some actually believe the situation gets worse with a majoritarian parliament aligned to the winner president, which grants him a virtual carte blanche in economic decision making, laying of bills in parliament to appointing powers.
“He for instance, appoints all his ministers, chief directors, agency heads, metropolitan and district chief executives and by inference all messengers and frontline staff of the national disaster management organisation “NADMO” in all the constituencies that make up Ghana. Simply put, he is ‘Captain Planet’”.
On the other hand its said “Others are skeptical and actually suggest we do no harm to the constitution by reordering its configurations, intentions and spirits. It is not drunk and clothed with naked power that cannot be sober, they say. They point to the preamble of the constitution and show it to our faces “IN EXERCISE of our natural and inalienable right to establish a framework of government which shall secure for ourselves and posterity the blessing of liberty, equality of opportunity and prosperity;…”
“They even conclude that the directive principles of state policy in “(5) The State shall actively promote the integration of the peoples of Ghana and prohibit discrimination and prejudice on the grounds of place of origin, circumstances of birth, ethnic origin, gender or religion, creed or other beliefs.” Signify and does demand that the winner shall not take it all. And they finally dare all nay Sayers to go to court to seek interpretation of the constitutional provisions that confound them and where appropriate demand a ruling to order the ‘winner’ to do just as constitutionally and humanly possible.”
