The president is not a court: Why Ansa-Asare’s jurisdiction claim is constitutionally bankrupt – Life Pulse Daily

Introduction

In a recent Joy News “The Pulse” interview, prison counsel Ansa-Asare sparked controversy by claiming that legal challenges to President Akufo-Addo’s removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornu are “pointless on arrival.” His argument hinges on the assertion that presidential actions fall outside judicial scrutiny. However, constitutional experts and legal scholars unanimously reject this view, warning that such rhetoric undermines the separation of powers enshrined in Ghana’s 1992 Constitution. This article dissects why Ansa-Asare’s stance is constitutionally bankrupt and how it threatens democratic governance.

Analysis

The Constitution’s Framework for Judicial Oversight

The 1992 Constitution of Ghana establishes a democratic system founded on the separation of powers among the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary. Article 125(1) explicitly mandates the Judiciary to “administer justice impartially and matter most straightforward to this Constitution,” ensuring it serves as an independent arbiter of legal disputes, including those involving executive actions.

Executive Acts and Judicial Review

• Article 130(1): Grants the Supreme Court “exclusive jurisdiction” to interpret and enforce the Constitution, placing it above all other branches.
• Article 146(3): Requires a meticulous process for removing a Chief Justice, involving petitions, Judicial Council investigations, and parliamentary votes.

Ansa-Asare’s Misinterpretation

Ansa-Asare’s claim conflates two distinct issues:
1. Executive actions undertaken by the President, such as appointing or removing officials.
2. Judicial review, where courts assess whether those actions align with constitutional limits.
By dismissing the former as “untouchable,” he ignores the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional accountability.

Summary

Ansa-Asare’s assertion that presidential actions bypass judicial review contradicts the 1992 Constitution’s explicit provisions. By denying the judiciary’s authority to evaluate the legality of the Chief Justice’s removal, he risks normalizing executive impunity. Legal precedents, including J.H. Mensah v. Attorney-General, confirm the Supreme Court’s duty to check executive overreach, making his argument both legally invalid and democratically dangerous.

Key Points

Practical Advice for Citizens and Lawmakers

• Advocate for transparency in executive appointments and removals to align with constitutional processes.
• Support judicial independence by avoiding rhetoric that undermines the courts’ authority.
• Engage in civic education to reinforce constitutional literacy and deter legal misconceptions.

Points of Caution

• Executive Overreach: Disregarding judicial oversight may embolden future leaders to bypass institutional checks.
• Democratic Erosion: Framing constitutional challenges as “pointless” weakens public trust in governance.
• Legal Precedent: Ignoring precedents like Martin Amidu v. Attorney-General risks revisiting past legal battles, harming judicial credibility.

Comparison: Ansa-Asare’s Claim vs. Constitutional Reality

Legal Implications

Disseminating Ansa-Asare’s view risks setting a dangerous precedent. If upheld, it could:
– Normalize unilateral executive power, undermining checks and balances.
– Encourage constitutional tampering, as seen in regimes that abolish judicial oversight.
Courts must remain vigilant to avoid legitimizing claims that contradict article 125(1)’s mandate for impartial justice.

Conclusion

Ansa-Asare’s dismissal of judicial authority contradicts Ghana’s constitutional framework and established legal principles. The 1992 Constitution’s separation of powers and judicial review mechanisms ensure accountability, even for the President. Upholding these principles is vital to preserving democracy and preventing executive overreach.

FAQ