No courtroom docket has jurisdiction to hear a case after the president acts on it – Ansa-Asare tells Torkornoo – Life Pulse Daily

Introduction

The recent debate over the constitutional validity of judicial intervention in Ghana’s presidential appointments process has ignited significant discussion among legal scholars and practitioners. At the center of this discourse is Professor Kwaku Ansa-Asare, former Director of the Ghana School of Law, whose pointed remarks about the jurisdiction of courts to challenge presidential decisions under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution have sparked renewed interest in Ghana’s democratic and judicial framework. This article delves into the legal principles, historical context, and implications of Ansa-Asare’s assertions, providing clarity on the interplay between executive authority and judicial power in Ghana.

Analysis: The Constitutional and Judicial Landscape

The Constitutional Framework of Appointments

Under Article 146 of Ghana’s Constitution, the President holds the sole authority to appoint the Chief Justice and other judges, guided by the Council of State’s recommendations. This provision underscores the constitutional separation of powers, assigning the President a critical role in judicial appointments while restricting courts from second-guessing his decisions. Ansa-Asare emphasizes that once the President acts under Article 146, no court—including the High Court—can legally revisit the matter. This principle aligns with global constitutional practices where executive discretion in appointments is deemed final unless explicitly challenged through impeachment or oversight mechanisms.

The Role of Judicial Review

In many jurisdictions, courts can invalidate executive actions deemed unconstitutional. However, Ghana’s constitutional architecture explicitly exempts Article 146 processes from judicial review. This design reflects a deliberate balance between the executive’s authority and the judiciary’s oversight role. By preventing courts from intervening after a presidential appointment, the Constitution aims to avoid protracted legal battles that could destabilize democratic governance. Ansa-Asare’s critique of Justice Torkornoo’s stance—suggesting that her opposition to the appointment process reflects ignorance of constitutional nuances—highlights this tension between accountability and executive autonomy.

Public and Judicial Perceptions

The controversy underscores differing interpretations of constitutional intent. While Ansa-Asare argues that judicial intervention in such cases constitutes overreach, others might view it as a means to ensure transparency and accountability. This divergence underscores the importance of public understanding of constitutional provisions. Clear communication about the limits and scope of each branch’s power remains essential to maintaining civic trust in Ghana’s legal system.

Summary

Ansa-Asare’s analysis asserts that courts lack jurisdiction to review presidential appointments under Article 146, emphasizing the finality of executive decisions in this domain. He critiques Justice Torkornoo’s public dissent as misinformed, stressing that the President’s constitutional duties cannot be obstructed by judicial bodies. This perspective reinforces the notion that Article 146 is a self-contained mechanism for appointing the Chief Justice, immune to post-hoc judicial scrutiny.

Key Points

Practical Advice

For legal practitioners and policymakers, understanding the scope of Article 146 is critical. Citizens and public figures should refrain from making speculative comments on constitutional processes without grasping their technical nuances. Experts recommend consulting constitutional law resources or legal advisors before challenging executive actions in settings where judicial review is constitutionally barred.

Points of Caution

While Ansa-Asare’s analysis is rooted in constitutional interpretation, critics may argue that absolute judicial immunity from executing duties could enable executive overreach. The legal community must balance respect for Article 146’s mandate with safeguarding against arbitrary or unconstitutional practices. Public discourse should prioritize accuracy and avoid reducing complex constitutional debates to soundbites.

Comparison

In contrast to Ghana, some countries allow courts to review judicial appointments post-appointment. However, Ghana’s model prioritizes executive efficiency in appointments while minimizing adversarial legal battles. This approach reflects a tailored application of separation of powers suited to Ghana’s governance priorities.

Legal Implications

The case highlights the binding nature of Article 146’s constitutional exclusions. Courts attempting to assert jurisdiction over such appointments risk accusations of exceeding their authority, potentially inviting appeals to higher courts or constitutional amendments. Legal professionals must navigate these boundaries carefully to avoid undermining judicial legitimacy.

Conclusion

While constitutional law can seem abstract, its practical applications shape everyday governance. Ansa-Asare’s insights remind stakeholders that constitutional provisions like Article 146 are tools for maintaining balanced governance. By respecting these boundaries, Ghana can promote stability while addressing concerns about transparency and accountability in judicial appointments.

FAQ