|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Introduction: A Leadership Gap Sparks National Debate
Ghana has found itself in unfamiliar constitutional territory following the concurrent absence of President John Dramani Mahama, Vice-President Naana Jane Opoku-Agyemang, and Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin from the country. The President attends the African Union Debt Conference in Lomé, Togo, while the Vice-President receives medical treatment in the United Kingdom. The Speaker, who constitutionally should act as President in their absence, departed the country on May 8.
In a press statement issued on May 12, 2025, the Minority Caucus in Parliament condemned the situation as “alarming and unconstitutional,” arguing that Ghana is currently without a constitutionally mandated Head of State. They cited Article 60 of the 1992 Constitution, which provides a succession mechanism when the President and Vice-President cannot perform their duties.
The Constitutional Clause in Question: Article 60 of the 1992 Constitution
Article 60 of Ghana’s Constitution outlines a clear hierarchy of executive authority. Specifically:
- Article 60(11): When the President and Vice-President are unable to perform the functions of the Presidency, the Speaker of Parliament shall act as President.
- Article 60(12): The Speaker must take the presidential oath before assuming this role.
According to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Asare v. Attorney-General and Speaker of Parliament (2003-2004), the president and vice president’s physical absence from the country constitutes their “inability” to perform their functions, triggering the need for the Speaker to step in.
Legal Expert Weighs In: Kwaku Anaane-Gyinde on the Constitutional Crisis
In an interview with DUBAWA, law lecturer Kwaku Anaane-Gyinde of the GIMPA Law School underscored the seriousness of the situation.
“We’ve witnessed this before,” he said, referring to the precedent set in 2002. “At that time, both the President and Vice-President were absent, and the Supreme Court ruled that their physical absence amounted to inability. The Speaker was then sworn in as Acting President.”
Indeed, Speaker Edward Doe Adjaho assumed the role of Acting President for three days in 2002 while the top two executives were abroad. Since that ruling, this legal interpretation has been considered settled law.
“What is new in this case,” Anaane-Gyinde continued, “is that the Speaker himself is also outside the jurisdiction. So we are in uncharted waters.”
A Legal Lacuna: When the Constitution Falls Silent
Anaane-Gyinde points out that Article 60 does not anticipate a scenario where all three leaders are absent. “The Constitution only speaks about the President, the Vice-President, and the Speaker. It says nothing about what happens when all three are away. That leaves us in a legal lacuna.”
In constitutional law, a lacuna is a gap or absence in legal provisions. The lack of clear succession language for this situation exposes the country to uncertainty and potential instability.
Who Should Lead in a Crisis? The Case for the Chief Justice
Despite not being explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, Anaane-Gyinde argues that the Chief Justice should logically be next in line. He refers to the Interpretation Act of 2009 (Act 729), which recommends a “purposive approach” to legal interpretation, focusing on the intent and objective of the law.
“If we follow the purposive approach,” he said, “we can safely say that the next person to take over the powers of the Presidency is the Chief Justice.”
This reasoning aligns with the Supreme Court’s rationale in past rulings: to prevent any vacuum in executive authority and avoid potential instability.
The Symbolism and Power of the Presidential Oath
Anaane-Gyinde also stressed the importance of swearing the presidential oath, even for a short-term acting role. “In 2002, the Speaker was sworn in for just three days. But the law requires it. The oath is symbolic of the authority being conferred.”
The ceremony is typically held in Parliament, where the presence of elected representatives symbolises the will of the people.
Security and Stability at Stake
Anaane-Gyinde emphasised that beyond legal semantics, the matter has real-world implications. “Our President is an executive President and the Commander-in-Chief of the Ghana Armed Forces. He holds highly sensitive powers related to national security.”
In times of crisis, such as a terrorist attack or natural disaster, the absence of a constitutionally recognised head of state could paralyse the government’s ability to act swiftly and decisively.
“You need someone available at all times to receive briefings, make decisions, and maintain order,” he said. “We cannot afford a vacuum.”
Is Technology a Solution? The Need for Constitutional Review
Anaane-Gyinde acknowledged that modern communication tools could allow a President to perform some duties remotely. However, he argued that the constitutional framework must be updated to reflect this reality.
“Our Constitution states that if both the President and Vice President are out of the jurisdiction, they are considered unable to perform their functions,” he said. “But in this age of the internet and instant communication, perhaps that clause needs to be reviewed.”
He suggests a constitutional amendment that clarifies the powers and limitations of remote governance, thereby eliminating the need for ambiguous interpretations.
A Preventable Crisis: Could Coordination Have Averted This?
One of the more troubling aspects of this situation is that it has been avoidable. Anaane-Gyinde questioned why the three top officials failed to coordinate their travel schedules.
“Normally, such high-level trips are planned with mutual awareness,” he said. “If proper coordination existed, at least one of them could have stayed behind.”
He called for better communication between the Executive and Legislative branches to prevent such lapses from recurring.
Diverging Legal Opinions: Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh Pushes Back
In contrast, legal scholar Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare argues that the requirement to swear in the Speaker as Acting President is a misinterpretation of the Constitution.
In a public commentary, he wrote: “Few myths have lingered as stubbornly as the idea that every time the President and Vice-President travel outside the country, the Speaker must be sworn in. The Constitution does not require it.”
According to Prempeh, the provision is a holdover from a different constitutional era that no longer applies. He described the practice as “ritual, not law”.
Anaane-Gyinde Responds: Court Rulings Are Binding
While acknowledging that Prempeh is entitled to his opinion, Anaane-Gyinde held firm to the authority of the Supreme Court ruling.
“Whatever the Supreme Court says becomes law. We must respect their decisions. If anyone disagrees, the right course of action is to propose a constitutional amendment, not to defy the ruling.”
“Right now, technically speaking, we have no President in Ghana,” Anaane-Gyinde warned.
Potential Risks and Scenarios
The absence of a clear Acting President poses several risks:
- National Security: In a crisis, who authorises using the military or emergency funds?
- International Diplomacy: Ghana may miss crucial diplomatic opportunities or appear unstable to foreign partners.
- Legal Validity: Executive decisions made in this period could be challenged in court.
- Public Confidence: Perceptions of a leadership vacuum could fuel political instability or public unrest.
What Comes Next?
This episode exposes a critical gap in Ghana’s democratic architecture. While Article 60 was designed with continuity, its current structure is insufficient for complex modern realities.
Anaane-Gyinde concluded with a plea: “It is my hope that the Presidency and Parliament will never allow this to happen again. We must negotiate and plan better. We’ve come too far to let institutional oversight threaten our stability.”
The Minority has called for urgent action, and many legal scholars and citizens have echoed that call.
