NPP should have appealed against court decision

0

Cameron Doudu

After the Ghana Supreme Court had decided, on 29 August 2013, that Mr John Dramani Mahama had legally won the election held in December 2012, I asked a lawyer whether the NPP should not have appealed against the decision by having the matter re-examined by the full Bench of the Supreme Court.

His answer was this: ?But that Full Bench ? what would it have that the original Panel did not have??

This astounded me. If a man who had spent many years at the Ghana Bar, was so sceptical about taking a case to the Full Bench of the Supreme Court, then what hope do Ghanaians have of permanently institutionalizing constitutional democracy?

Constitutional rule entrusts the interpretation of The Constitution to the Supreme Court. So it is of crucial importance that every citizen of Ghana should have absolute trust in the integrity, as well as the competence, of the Supreme Court, in dealing with constitutional issues.

Now, the most famous Supreme Court in the world is that of the United States. However, Judges nominated by Presidents of a certain political persuasion (either Democrats or Republicans) although required to be confirmed by the Senate, nevertheless tend to vote in line with the political predilections of the President who nominated them!

In the past few years, the US Supreme Court of the US has given decisions that are of a conservative.

One judge, in particular, has been singled out as the ?anchor of the conservative majority of the Court?.

Appointed in 1986 by the conservative President, Ronald Reagan, the judge?s name is Antonin Scalia. Another notorious conservative on the Court is its only black member, Clarence Thomas.

He was appointed in 1990 by President George H.W Bush (Republican).

If we were in the USA, certain judges would no doubt have been marked down as ?NDC judges?, due to their positions on the election petition.

But we in Ghana are more respectful towards public officials, and so few would admit that they do not repose full confidence in our Supreme Court.

But the Supreme Court would be under an illusion if its members began to think of themselves as unaccountable to public opinion.

The Supreme Court will get an opportunity soon to add to, or reduce, public trust in its integrity and competence.

For a lawyer called Dr John Ephraim Baiden, has filed a most unusual action, asking the Court to pronounce on whether the Bank of Ghana is fulfilling its constitutional obligation to ?maintain a stable currency? in Ghana. This is the story: QUOTE: THE Supreme Court has given the Bank of Ghana (BoG) a fortnight to submit its statement of case, in [a] suit filed against it by a renowned private legal practitioner, Dr John Ephraim Baiden, on the continuous depreciation of the cedi.

Baiden [alleges that] the BoG [has failed] to stabilise the Cedi. He based his challenge on Article 183(2) (a) of the 1992 Constitution:? ?The Bank of Ghana shall promote and maintain the stability of the currency of Ghana, and direct, and regulate, the currency system in the interest of the economic progress of Ghana.?

[Dr Baiden] also cited Section 4(b) of the Bank of Ghana Act, 2002, which says the Central Bank ?shall promote by monetary measures, the stabilisation of the value of the currency within and outside Ghana.? The Cedi has depreciated against the dollar by over 27 percent [in 2014] alone.

[The] BoG, in reaction to the suit, filed a writ of preliminary objection to strike out the suit, indicating [that] the Supreme Court was not the forum to address the issue.

[But the Supreme Court has rejected that and given the BoG a fortnight to file its defence].

Dr Baiden, [claims] that the Central Bank [is] not performing its role, [as] stipulated by law. ?They need to file their defence,? he stated. ?If they have delivered a stable currency for the country, they should be able to speak to that. Their record speaks for itself. ? It is not central banking when it comes to managing our currency. They are ?practising central destruction?.

UNQUOTE

This case will be almost as challenging to the Supreme Court as the election petition was. For since January 2014, the purchasing power of Ghanaians, in respect of imported goods or goods whose manufacturing depends on inputs bought with foreign exchange, has declined by almost onethird.

This is due to three factors: (a) excessive financing by the Bank of Ghana of the Government?s deficit in respect of its expenditure; (b) excessive debt servicing in foreign exchange due to the Government?s over-reliance on external borrowing; and (c) the inflationary pressures exerted on the Ghana economy by factors (a) and (b).

The facile answer to the suit would be that economic policy should be left to the Government, once it is elected.

But the framers of the 1992 Constitution, having lived through the horrendous Latin American-type economy in Ghana from April 1983 to the mid-1990s ? wanted to prevent the elected Government from being able to pursue policies that whittled down the value of the Cedi, in relation to foreign currencies.

The decline in the Cedi?s value, in those years, was over 30,000 percent!

Because the writers of the Constitution did not want us to live through another catastrophic economic period, they deliberately imposed an unusual economic policy fiat on the Bank of Ghana. The BoG and the Government cannot abrogate that provision and claim to be running a constitutional Government.

I doff my hat to Dr Baiden. We need more such people who seek to make the elected

Government accountable.

For democracy does not  grow in one day, but through constant tests of this nature.

We wait with bated breath to see how the Supreme Court will handle this issue.

www.cameronduodu.com

Send your news stories to [email protected] Follow News Ghana on Google News

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here