Warning: trim() expects parameter 1 to be string, array given in /home/danquahi/public_html/libraries/joomla/html/parameter.php on line 83
The Absence of a Concession and the Powers of the Supreme Court | Danquah Institute - Media, Research & Policy Analysis
  1. Skip to Menu
  2. Skip to Content
  3. Skip to Footer>

Newsflash

  • GHANA MUST WAKE UP, SHOUT FOR A NEW REGISTER AND SHAKE UP THE EC -

    FITCH Rating’s latest report on Ghana lays particular emphasis on the importance of Ghana’s democracy and stability to the country’s economic prospects. Whiles it gives a negative outlook based on how the economy is being run, Fitch makes the point that Ghana’s credit rating has not, however, fallen below ‘B’ because of the country’s “strong governance record and recent democratic history,” and that, this is “reflected in Ghana’s ability to attract foreign direct investment, which at 7% of GDP is well above that of Nigeria, Gabon, Zambia, Kenya and Angola.”

  • Danquah Institute Reacts to Bogus Polls On NPP General Secretary Race -

    The attention of the Danquah Institute has been drawn to a story making the rounds on social media and now on www.ghanaweb.com, as well, titled “Danquah Institute predicts 64.7% win for Kwabena Agyepong.”

  • The Monetary Policy Committee - November 2013 -

    You are welcome to this Press briefing. The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) held its 58th meeting on November 25 to 27, 2013 to review the latest economic developments and the monetary policy stance. I present to you the outcome of the deliberations.

    The latest projections by the IMF indicate a pickup in the pace of global activity from 2.9 percent in 2013 to 3.6 percent in 2014, driven largely by the advanced economies with the impulse to global growth expected to come mainly from the United States against weaker prospects in emerging market economies.

  • Africa’s tax systems: progress, but what is the next generation of reforms? -

    Mick MooreTaxation is zipping up the development agenda, but the discussion is often focussed on international aspects such as tax havens or the Robin Hood Tax. Both very important, but arguably, even more important is what happens domestically – are developing country tax systems regressive or progressive? Are they raising enough cash to fund state services? Are they efficient and free of corruption? This absolutely magisterial overview of the state of tax systems in Africa comes from Mick Moore (right), who runs the International Centre for Tax and Development (ICTD). It was first published by the Africa Research Institute.

    Anglophone countries have led the way in reforming tax administration in Africa, considerably more so than their francophone peers. The reasons for this are numerous. Networks of international tax specialists are based mainly in English-speaking countries. Many of the modern systems that promote best practice within tax authorities were developed in anglophone countries, especially Australia. International donors, and particularly the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), have directly and indirectly promoted a lot of reform of national tax authorities. In fact, this has been one of the success stories of British aid.

  • TWO DECADES OF FREEDOM: What South Africa Is Doing With It, And What Now Needs To Be Done -

    As the 20th anniversary of the birth of democracy in South Africa, on April 27 2014, approaches, it seems a perfect opportunity to take a step back and get a long-range perspective on the important question: “So, what has Nelson Mandela’s South Africa done with its freedom?”

    Goldman Sachs has produced this report in the hope of contributing to- wards a more balanced narrative on South Africa; one, which in the wake of 2012’s tragic events at Marikana, had become somewhat hysterical, short-term and often negative

  • Shifting Power? Assessing the Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives -

    Accountability and transparency initiatives hav e taken democratisation, governance, aid and development circles by storm since the turn of th e century. Many actors involved with them – as donors, funders, programme managers, implementers and researchers – are now keen to know more about what these initiatives are achieving.

    This paper arises from a review of the impact and effectiveness of transparency and accountability initiatives which gathered and analysed existing evidence, discussed how it could be improved, and evaluated how impact and effectiveness could be enhanced. This paper takes the discussion further, by delving into what lies behind the methodological and evaluative debates currently surrounding governance and accountability work. It illustrates how choices about methods are made in the cont ext of impact assessment designs driven by different objectives and different ideological and epistemological underpinnings. We argue that these differences are articulated as methodological debates, obscuring vital issues underlying accountability work, which are about power and politics, not methodological technicalities.

  • ADVISORY NOTES TO PARLIAMENT ON THE PETROLEUM AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA, AGM PETROLEUM AND COLA NATURAL RESOURCES -

    The Ministry of Energy has officially laid before Parliament two Petroleum Agreements for ratification following earlier approval by Cabinet. The Agreements are:

    1. Petroleum Agreement among Government of the Republic of Ghana, Ghana National Petroleum Corporation, GNPC Exploration and Production Company Limited and AGM Petroleum Ghana LTD in respect of the South Deepwater Tano Contract Area (and shall be called AGM Contract for the purpose of this Analysis).

    2. Petroleum Agreement among Government of the Republic of Ghana, Ghana National Petroleum Corporation, Cola Natural Resources and Medea in respect of East Cape Three Points Contract Area (and shall be called Cola Contract for the purpose of this analysis).

    This Advisory Notes is provided to members of Parliament to enrich debate during the consideration of the Agreements. The Notes are based on analysis by the Africa Centre for Energy Policy (ACEP) of the Negotiated Agreements and the memoranda accompanying them. These Notes do not cover most of the subjects in the two Agreements as most of them have common provisions. The focus of the analysis therefore covers subjects that show material differences between the Agreements for the purpose of enriching the debate in parliament.

  • CADA DISCUSSES OVER VOTING -

    Of late Ghanaians have become obsessed with throwing electoral ‘jargons’ around arising from the recent Election Petition in the Supreme Court of Ghana and most people have overnight turned themselves into Electoral Specialists in view of the enormous interest generated during the petition hearing. However, there are still lack of clarity and understanding in some of the widely used electoral terminologies. The Centre for African Democratic Affairs (CADA) a ‘Think Tank’ of Election Experts, has taken upon itself the challenge to critically examine some of the terms that created confusion in the minds of people during the court proceedings. One of such terminologies is over voting whose definition is still ambiguous even after the ruling of the Supreme Court. CADA therefore discusses the term Over Voting in the first of its series.

  • A strong Parliament is key to fighting corruption - Minority Leader -

    The Minority Leader in Parliament, Osei Kyei Mensah-Bonsu, has stated that strengthening Parliament’s financial oversight responsibilities is critical to combating corruption.

    He noted that “the evil enterprise of corruption which has become cancerous in Ghana”, explaining that Parliament has no option than to demonstrate extreme concern about the problems and threats that corruption poses to the stability and security of the country.

    He said corruption undermines state institutions and the values of democracy, as well as cultural and traditional values and the justice system. According to him these work against sustainable development and the rule of law.

  • Mike Ocquaye calls for bi-partisan inquiry into Vikileaks -

    Former Member of Parliament for Dome Kwabenya constituency, Prof Mike Ocquaye, has called for a Parliamentary nquiry into comments made by sacked Deputy Communication Minister, Victoria Hammah, on a leaked tape.

    Prof Ocquaye who is also a former Second Deputy Speaker of Parliament said Parliament is mandated to enquire into allegations of corruption such as those made by Victoria Hammah.

    Miss Hammah said on the leaked tape that has gone viral since last week that the Minister of Gender, Women and Social Protection played a key role in the August 25 ruling of the Supreme Court Judges on the 2012 Election Petition.


Warning: Parameter 1 to modMainMenuHelper::buildXML() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/danquahi/public_html/libraries/joomla/cache/handler/callback.php on line 99

The Absence of a Concession and the Powers of the Supreme Court

PDF Print E-mail

 

As far as I know, no constitution, in the world, recognizes or even acknowledges the importance of the concession by the losing presidential candidate in a presidential election. Nevertheless, this concession has become a ritual that all the advanced democracies acknowledge and recognize as an important element of their electoral activities. It is that singular action that signifies the successful resolution of the election and avoids the involvement of the judicial branch, in what should properly belong to the political space.

Occasionally, however, there is a dispute about the election results and the concession is not forthcoming. In this situation, the optimal solution is to have the courts resolve the dispute prior to inaugurating the President. This is because most countries realize the irreparable harm inherent in inaugurating a President, who may not have been validly elected. Such harm includes, but is not limited to, the cloud that hangs around the Presidency, which might deter international stakeholders from dealing with the President, or dealing with him under significant uncertainty. Domestically, the President’s power to appoint is likely to come into conflict with the legislature’s power to vet as a serious legislature may raise questions about the wisdom in investing vetting resources into appointments that may be short-lived. Local actors may be plunged into a wait-and-see mode and freeze their business plans, in light of the uncertainty about the direction of the country.

It is because of the avoidance of this harm that led the Florida state courts and the USA federal courts to work tirelessly and around the clock to resolve the election dispute between former President George W. Bush and the then Vice-President Albert Gore in 2000. On December 12, 2000, 35 days after the November, 7 2000 elections, the USA Supreme Court ended the election dispute, paving the way for the inauguration of President Bush on January 20, 2001. In the words of the Court, “when contending parties invoke the process of the courts, it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront.” In 2004, the disputed Ukraine Presidential election of 21st November was resolved by their Supreme Court on December 3rd (12 days). The hearings, in that dispute, was televised and lasted only 5 days.

Of course, we find ourselves in a peculiar situation of having inaugurated a President, who may not have been validly elected. The Chief Justice was required to swear in the President even as the same law required her Court to decide whether the President, she swore in, was validly elected. It is easy to forget that nothing in our Constitution necessitates this result. It is an electoral-commissioner (EC) created problem, facilitated by a legislature that is too eager to cede legislative power to the EC.

The first President of the 4th Republic was inaugurated on January 7, 1993. Therefore, under the 4 year-term rule, succeeding Presidents must be inaugurated on January 7. That is the

constitutionally determined date, from which we must set an election calendar, taking into account the possibility of a runoff (under the 50%+1 rule), transition, and where necessary judicial intervention. Thus, contrary to the popular belief, there is no constitutional basis or a good reason to hold general elections on December 7, when the inauguration is slated for January 7. It is just a formula for political chaos.

The Constitution vests the power to conduct and supervise elections and referenda in the EC. This power, per se, does not confer on the EC the authority to set election and referenda dates. Rather, what it means is that the people, through their representatives in Parliament will set election and referenda and the EC will put an infrastructure in place to allow for orderly voting on those days. However, under C.I. 15, the EC has arrogated this date-setting power to his office, with the tacit approval of parliament. The EC does this by issuing a writ (see C.I. 15(2) (2)(b)).

The EC power-grab, by itself, might not be so problematic if it were exercised wisely. Alas, as some of us have pointed out in the past, the election dates set by the EC have been unreasonable. C.I. 15 does not set a date certain for elections. Rather it creates a window (not less than 30 days or more than 90 days after the last day appointed for the nomination of candidates). In his wisdom, the current EC has chosen days in the first week in December, exposing that nation to the risk of a rushed transition, the embarrassment of an inauguration while election disputes are unresolved, and the current political impasse, epitomized by NPP MPs who appropriately refuse to vet nominees of a President who may not have been validly elected.

By way of contrast, the 1992 Presidential election was held on November, 3rd 1992, two clear months before inauguration. Parliament must redress this problem with a law that sets the day for general elections. The day must take into account the potential for a runoff, the need for an effective transition as well the possibility of an election dispute. The first Saturday in November seems a logical date (see a proposal from 11 years ago http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/features/artikel.php?ID=22740).

But what next, now that we have inaugurated a President, who may not have been validly elected? In my opinion, the Supreme Court, the only body, that can pronounce on the validity of the election of the President, must realize the awkwardness of the current situation, confront the issues and resolve the election dispute more expeditiously than is suggested by its current trajectory.

The election petition procedures (C.I. 74) underscore the importance of a timely resolution of such disputes as they stipulate daily sittings, (including Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays) once the petition and answer are duly served and the application for further and better particulars have been determined.

Alas, 42 days after the petition was filed and 32 days after the inauguration, the Court seems to be caught in a lot of motions but very little movement. During this period, the Court has decided

that a political party is a necessary party to an election litigation that it could not initiate, thereby creating a litigation landscape where only one political party is joined as a necessary party. At the same time, the Court has also managed to decide that the EC needs not share “pink sheets” with petitioners, where such petitioners (or their agents) were in the election strong room, notwithstanding that one petitioner was neither a presidential candidate nor an agent of a presidential candidate and could not have had access to those pink sheets. And to top it all, the Court has set aside 16 days for the petitioners to amend their petition (2 days) and the respondents to provide amended answers (14 days).

It seems the lack of a clearly specified and smart timeline for pre-hearing motions is standing in the way of a timely resolution of this presidential-election petition. The judiciary’s record on the timely resolution of election disputes provides good reasons to worry about the pace of the current presidential-election petition. Followers of the courts and politics, no doubt, recall the case of Amoo v. Addotey, a parliamentary-election dispute, which took longer than 4 years to resolve, allowing Addotey to serve a full term, even though Amoo was validly elected.

It is for this reason that the Supreme Court must announce and pre-commit itself to a timetable in the current presidential-election petition. There are, at least, three advantages to such a pre- commitment. First, it provides a certain date on which the 2012 Presidential election outcome will be resolved. This, in turn, will reduce political uncertainty for all stakeholders, allowing them to better plan their business and operations. Second, it will discipline the lawyers involved in the litigation, allowing them to focus on the substantive issues and presenting their most important witnesses. Third, it will discipline the Justices, allowing them to focus on the substantive issues before them, freeing them distracting motions that lead to bad law (e.g., who can join an election petition?).

What should such a timetable look like? The Court should provide a hearing period, of no more than 10 days, allocated in some way to the disputants (perhaps 5 days to the petitioners and 5 days to the respondents). At the end of the hearing, the Court should give a decision, in no more than 7 days.

Thus, assuming the Court resumes sitting on 24th February (after the 16 day lull for the amended petition and answers), this case should be decided no later than March 18, 2013. That will be 100 days after the election, 79 days after the initial election petition, and 69 days after the inauguration! While that is certainly too many days to decide an election outcome, the Court would have managed to “mitigate damages” under the circumstances and allow the country to return to the semblance of political normalcy!



Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites