Supreme Court nominee Justice Senyo Dzamefe ignited a constitutional debate during his vetting before Parliament’s Appointments Committee today.
This was when he shared his perspective on the conventional interpretations regarding the presidential succession when the head of state is temporarily outside Ghana’s jurisdiction.
The 1992 Constitution mandates that the Vice President assumes presidential duties immediately if the President is unable to perform the functions of his office due to absence.
The Speaker is also expected to take over if both the President and his Vice are unavailable.
A fresh oath needs to be sworn in all cases.
However, Justice Dzamefe argued that strict adherence may not always be necessary for short-term absences.
“This, my opinion, please, if the president should be out of the country, let’s say for one day and coming back, yes, the Constitution is there should be no vacuum. But technology can make you work from outside your office,” he said on Monday.
“But well, the law says if you are out of the jurisdiction, fine, but if you are in contact with those you work with… and the period is that short, maybe one day, I don’t think there should be this ceremony when you are coming back the following day for somebody to swear an oath, and then the following morning, the president’s or whoever is swearing a news oath to take his place,” he worried.
Vice Chairman of the Appointments Committee, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, challenged the nominee’s stance, noting its apparent contradiction with Dzamefe’s earlier insistence that “the law is the law” during discussions on judicial impartiality and asset declarations.
The Justice responded: “So, Mr Chairman. What I said was my opinion? It may not certainly be the law.
Afeno-Markin: “My Lord, it is your opinion that becomes the law. At the Supreme Court, it is policy decisions.”
Justice Dzamefe: It doesn’t override the Constitution.
Subsequently, the nominee explained that the situation remains a “lacuna” which “has to be filled up”.
“It shouldn’t be that vacuum. So I think the Supreme Court that has the power to interpret, can come out to make it definite that when those three people are not there, this person takes over…. When the President is not there, the Vice takes over. When the vice is not there is a speaker. And if the speaker is not there, I think there should be some express provision to say that there shouldn’t be a vacuum.
The Vice Chairman of the Committee pressed further regarding who he believes to take over when the Speaker is absent.
He answered that “in my opinion, the next should be the Chief Justice.”
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
