The Speaker of Ghana’s Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, has announced that lawmakers will seek legal interpretation regarding President Akufo-Addo’s decision not to sign certain bills that were approved by the legislature.
According to Bagbin, last year, President Akufo-Addo refused to sign the Criminal Offenses Bill of 2022, the Witchcraft Bill, and the Armed Forces Bill of 2023.
Meanwhile, Akufo-Addo has blamed his failure to sign the bill on financial constraints, refusing to assent to the alleged bills.
Responding to the President’s claims, the Speaker of Parliament has stated that they will go to court to seek legal interpretation.
“I want to end up assuring you that I will definitely be in touch with my good friend the president, his excellency Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, even though I disagree with him in his refusal to assent to our bills, and I have given notice that we will be in court about this matter,” he indicated.
Mr. Bagbin has stressed that President Akufo-Addo has no locus to determine the constitutionality of the bills as it is only within the purview of the Supreme Court, for which reason any alleged misuse of power should be contested by it (the Supreme Court) and not any other individual.
President Akufo-Addo clearly identified the Ghana Armed Forces Amendment Bill, sponsored by MP Francis-Xavier Sosu, as pudding financial burdens coupled with replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment.
Mr. Bagbin, in an official response to the president, reiterated, “The determination of any unconstitutionality is the sole purview of the Supreme Court, not the President. Hence, if there were concerns about Parliament acting beyond its constitutional authority, i.e., acting ultra vires, the appropriate course of action would be an action before the Supreme Court, not an executive declaration of unconstitutionality.”
“Again, the constitutional discretion vested in the presiding officer of Parliament, as per Article 108 and subject to Article 296, suggests that any allegations of misuse of this discretion should be contested in a court of competent jurisdiction rather than being pre-emptively adjudicated upon by the President.”