KEY POINTS
- Dr. Tony Aidoo criticized the Supreme Court’s recent decision.
- He warned the ruling undermines Ghana’s democracy and Parliament.
- Aidoo called for a purposive approach to constitutional interpretation.
The Supreme Court has drawn harsh criticism from Dr. Tony Aidoo, a former senior presidential advisor, who claims that it violates the separation of powers principle and weakens parliamentary authority.
Supreme court’s controversial ruling sparks criticism
His remarks follow the court’s recent verdict in a case contesting Parliament Speaker Alban Bagbin’s decision to grant some parliamentary seats vacation. The Supreme Court ruled that if a member of Parliament changes political parties while serving, they must immediately resign from office.
In an interview with JoyNews’ Newsfile on November 16, Aidoo contended that the court’s handling of the case runs the risk of becoming a “supra-constitutional body,” a function he claimed it is neither required nor permitted to perform. The balance of power between the legislature and the court is directly threatened by the decision, he said.
Aidoo underlined that because the case featured particular circumstances that called for a factual investigation, it ought to have been sent to a tribunal of facts. He maintained that by reading cases that, in his opinion, ought to have been handled differently, the Supreme Court had overreached its constitutional authority.
According to Aidoo, “the result is that the Supreme Court is gradually and methodically undermining Parliament and violating the principle of separation of powers.” He went further, saying that by undermining Parliament’s independence, the judiciary was “destroying the cause of Ghana’s democracy.”
Call for purposive interpretation of constitutional provisions
Aidoo promoted the application of a purposive approach, which takes into account the larger aim and purpose underlying legislative texts, in the interpretation of constitutional provisions in order to address such problems. In order to guarantee correct interpretation, he cited a 1975 ruling by the House of Lords in the United Kingdom that emphasized the significance of tracking legislation back to its inception.
Aidoo further chastised the court for neglecting to consult the Hansard, the official record of discussions from Ghana’s Consultative Assembly, which he claimed would have clarified the meaning of the relevant constitutional clause, Myjoyonline reported.
A limited interpretation of the Constitution runs the risk of weakening democracy, according to Aidoo, who added, “You don’t sit down and use a literal interpretation.”
