Clockwise from top left: Orlando shooting victims Edward Sotomayor, Stanley Almodovar, Luis Omar Ocasio-Ocampo, Juan Ramon Guerrero, Luis Vielma and Eric Ivan Ortiz-Rivera
A day before the Orlando, Florida, nightclub massacre, Luis Vielma, 22, updated his Facebook profile with a picture of himself standing with young people in front of a Disney castle and a caption that read: “True friends who become family.”
By Sunday night, his profile was altered to “Remember Luis Vielma” after police confirmed he was among 50 people killed in the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
As authorities frantically tried to notify all the relatives, the Orlando Police Department began publishing the names of victims on a city website on Sunday afternoon.
Among them was Vielma, who worked part-time as a rides attendant at the Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey theme park ride, while studying physical therapy at Seminole State College, according to his Facebook profile.
Others included Edward Sotomayor Jr., 34, Stanley Almodovar III, 23, Luis Omar Ocasio-Capo, 20, Juan Ramon Guerrero, 22, Eric Ivan Ortiz-Rivera, 36, and Peter O. Gonzalez-Cruz, 22.
Police killed the gunman, who was identified as Omar Mateen, 29, a New York-born Florida resident and U.S. citizen who was the son of immigrants from Afghanistan, and officials were probing evidence suggesting the attack may have been inspired by Islamic State militants.
The sheer number of deaths appeared to overwhelm officials in Orlando, a city of 270,000 people. Orlando police asked mourners to hold off on vigils as they were understaffed to police them.
“We understand our community is grieving and that vigils are being planned but PLEASE hold off on vigils – they represent a serious strain on our limited resources, which we need to dedicate to law enforcement and victims,” the city posted on its official Twitter handle.
Sotomayor was a marketing manager at a Sarasota, Florida-based gay-themed travel company. His boss, Al Ferguson, said Sotomayor’s partner was outside the nightclub putting something in the car when the shots rang out.
He got a text from Sotomayor telling him he was safe in the bathroom and not to come back into the club. Sotomayor texted again 20 minutes later to say he was OK. That was the last his partner heard from him, Ferguson said.
Sotomayor was a legend in the industry, Ferguson said. He booked tours for entertainer and drag queen RuPaul and put together the first gay cruise to Cuba last year. He was going to announce a second trip on Sunday, but was killed.
“Anyone who booked gay cruises knew Sotomayor,” Ferguson told Reuters. “He was a great man.”
In an Instagram post published on Sunday, RuPaul’s Drag Race judge Michelle Visage called Sotomayor “a joy.”
“I loved you on so many levels. You were SO SO special and will never be forgotten,” she wrote. “I promise you that.”
Neighbors of Almodovar, a 23-year-old pharmacy technician, said his parents had recently moved back to Puerto Rico after his mother became ill with cancer. He was the youngest in the family.
The Facebook page for Almodovar, of Clermont, Florida, was flooded with shocked tributes. “We’ll miss you Stanley. You made an impact on everyone that you came around. A good person and friend,” wrote Mark Nielsen of Deltona, Florida.
Images posted to Almodovar’s wall over the years showed him socializing with dozens of friends.
“I will always remember you,” Jeannette Molina wrote. “Your beautiful personality and spirit.”
The National Democratic Congress (NDC) Parliamentary Candidate for Weija-Gbawe constituency, Obuobia Darko-Opoku wishes all the Basic Education Certificate Examination (B.E.C.E) candidates in the nation, especially those in the Weija-Gbawe constituency success in the upcoming examination.
Obuobia Darko-Opoku, who is also the founder of the Obuobia Foundation, distributed about 2000 mathematical sets to some schools in the constituency as part of her commitment towards quality education. These mathematical sets programme started two years ago and has positively impacted on the success of students.
In her statement, she admonished students to be of good behaviour during the examination, and advised them to respect the invigilators and listen to every instruction given them by the examination officials and also abide by the rules and regulations regarding the examination.
She also urged the candidates not to rely on leaked papers, but rather concentrate on what they have been taught by their teachers and success will surely come their way.
“As a mother, I encourage you to be confident in the examination hall, do not be intimidated or frightened by anyone, just keep your calm and answer your questions accordingly, double check your answers if necessary and submit your answer booklets when they are requested for by the examination officials,” she stated.
She added: “You are the future leaders of our country, we trust in your potentials and capabilities, the President of Ghana, His Excellency John Dramani Mahama, your parents, families, friends and the whole nation are behind you with prayers. We know you will make us proud!
“We wish you all the best in your examination, we trust God to grant you retentive memory and success so you come out with flying colors!”
A sentencing hearing for South African athlete Oscar Pistorius, who murdered his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, has started in Pretoria.
He faces a jail term of at least 15 years, but his sentence can be reduced due to time already spent in prison and mitigating factors.
The hearing is expected to last all week with a sentence by Friday.
Pistorius, 29, killed Ms Steenkamp in February 2013 after firing four times through a locked toilet door.
The athlete has always maintained he believed he was shooting at an intruder.
Pistorius was initially sentenced to five years for manslaughter, but the conviction was upgraded to murder in December following an appeal by the prosecution.
South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the lower court did not correctly apply the rule of dolus eventualis – whether Pistorius knew that a death would be a likely result of his actions.
The panel of judges said that it was irrelevant who he thought was behind the door.
Original trial judge Thokozile Masipa will hear arguments from both prosecution and defence this week. The Paralympic athlete may testify.
Reeva Steenkamp’s father, Barry, who has been absent throughout the case due to poor health, may also appear in court.
Experts say a custodial sentence seems almost unavoidable but factors such as his mental fragility, disability and good behaviour might lead to a reduced jail term.
He was released from prison last October after almost a year in jail and allowed to serve out the remainder of his initial sentence under house arrest on his uncle’s property in Pretoria.
The South African made history by becoming the first amputee sprinter to compete at the Olympics, in London in 2012.
He competed in the 400m, wearing carbon-fibre blades to run against able-bodied athletes.
Vice President Paa Kwesi Bekoe Amissah-Arthur will leave Accra on Tuesday for Saint Petersburg, Russia to participate in the Russia-Africa Economic Forum.
The three-day programme slated from 16th June, 2016 to 18th June, 2016 will attract hundreds of participants from both the advanced countries and the developing economies, especially in Africa.
They include heads of government, representatives of the European Union (EU), World Bank, World Health Organisation (WHO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), academia, media and civil defence and natural disaster organisations.
The forum, which will be characterised by panel discussions, will examine the extent to which global challenges such as epidemics of infectious diseases impact negatively on the economies of countries and entire regions and what measures could be taken to halt such emergencies.
The discussions will also dwell on the news trends in global geo-political economy and its ramifications on Africa’s market share of world trade and its struggle to revamp its economy to attract investments as well as improve the material conditions of its people.
During one of the sessions, the Vice President will in response to questions from the moderator brief the gathering about the various interventions which the government has instituted over the years to reconstruct the economy and ensure the social renewal of the society.
Mr. Amissah-Arthur is billed to confer with the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Medvedev, on ways of cementing trade and other forms of economic relations between the two countries.
Ghana-Russia trade statistics indicates that external trade turnover declined from $1.42 billion in 2010 to $1.02 in 2015, while Russia’s share in Ghana’s total external trade stood close at 0.4 per cent in 2015.
Captains of the Russian industry are also expected to call on the Vice President on the sidelines of the forum to seek investment opportunities in Ghana, especially in the agriculture, mining, tourism and oil and gas sectors.
The Vice President is also expected to interact with the Ghanaian community during which he will shed light on the successes chalked by the government and challenges confronting it in its management of the economy and efforts designed to transform the lives of the vast majority of the people.
The 2016 presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, says the culture where people choose politics as a money-making venture will be fought and defeated under his administration, God-willing from January 2017, explaining that it is frustrating the development of the country and breeding poverty.
He has, therefore, issued a warning to members of the NPP desirous of serving in his government that he would only work with people committed to working to enriching the lives of Ghanaians, and not people who wish to create, loot and share the scarce resources of the country.
“Public office is no longer going to be the platform for the brazen theft of public funds. Public service is going to be just that, public service. I have said it before, and I will repeat it. Those who are coming into office, if we win, must understand that they are coming to give public service. Those who are coming there to make money must stay in the private sector,” he reiterated.
In tackling the rampant cases of corruption, which have become widespread under the Mahama government, he reiterated his commitment to appointing “an Independent Special Prosecutor with a legislative mandate to deal with corruption, who will be appointed and empowered to tackle corruption.”
The main preoccupation of his government, therefore, he said, will be to “build a Ghana where there are jobs for our young people, where our people do not defecate in the open, a Ghana which is fit for the 21st century.”
He assured Ghanaians that the NPP has the “vision and the programme of action that will address the concerns of the vast majority of Ghanaians, around which we can inspire the rapid development of our nation.”
Nana Akufo-Addo made this known when he addressed a fundraising dinner organized in London by the UK branch of the Young Executive Forum of the NPP on Friday, June 10, 2016.
NPP ready for election 2016
Nana Akufo-Addo told the gathering that the spirt and morale of the NPP at the grassroots is unmatched, evidenced in the vigilance displayed by party officials in the limited voter registration exercise.
“The NPP is ready for the big task ahead and we’re not going to permit twenty seven zero to happen. We are going to do whatever is legitimately possible to effect the change that Ghanaians need,” he said.
And for that change, he appealed for the unalloyed support of all NPP members, both in and out of Ghana, stating that victory in this year’s elections will not be for him, or for party members, but for Ghanaians.
“Let us all work together and put our shoulders to the wheel. Let us be the generation that sets Ghana on the road to progress and prosperity. That prosperity is within our grasp,” he added.
On what remains his motivation for contesting for the Presidency, he explained that “I want, one day, in our grandchildrens’ time, when things are going well and they are writing the history of Ghana that they will say it was in our grandparents’ time when Akufo-Addo was President that Ghana was put on the road to progress and prosperity. That is what I am fighting for.”
Present at the event were wife of the NPP flagbearer, Rebecca Akufo-Addo; NPP UK Branch Chairman, Michael Ansah, and branch executives; UK YEF Chairman, Alex Dadey; NPP Holland Branch Chairman, Kwame Prempeh; NPP Member of Parliament for Asante Akim Central, Hon. Kwame Anyimadu-Antwi; NPP Ashanti Regional Chairman, Bernard Antwi Boasiako; NPP parliamentary candidate for Asuogyaman, Kwame Adu Darkwa; NPP parliamentary candidate for Subin, Eugene Antwi; and a large, enthusiastic crowd of Ghanaians resident in the UK.
With few months to the 2016 general elections, none of the major political parties has launched its manifesto.
This is largely because one party fears the other will steal its ideas and incorporate them into its manifesto. Could this be dishonesty? Then who is to be blamed?
The cartoon by 3news’ Tilapia depicts the attitude of the two main political parties: So who has the best ideas to govern Ghana?
The Ghana Meteorological Agency (GMA) has called on the West African Examination Council (WAEC) to change its timetable for the writing of Basic Education Certificate Examinations (BECE) in the months of May and June.
According to the GMA, the country experiences its raining season at that period, therefore writing examinations around these months can bring untold hardship for the candidates.
Mr. David Owusu Kessie, a Duty Forecaster at the GMA made the call in an interview on Onua FM’s Yen Sempa Monday hosted by Kwame Karikari.
The GMA Forecaster gave the advice whilst updating Yen Sempa listeners the weather condition for Monday June 13, 2016 after Sunday’s downpour.
This year’s Basic Education Certificate Examination (WAEC) starts across the country today as parents entertain fears of possible flood especially in the capital Accra.
For Mr. Owusu Kessie, WAEC ought to relook at its time and if possible change it.
He noted that some of the examination centres are in open space without roof which will make writing the examination difficult.
“We may not know where the exams are being written and there can be flooding at the same time in theses examination centers,” he observed.
Meanwhile, GMA has predicted rainfall in parts of the country today.
Below is a statement from the GMA for today
24-HOUR REGIONAL FORECAST FOR GHANA
VALID FROM 6.00AM TODAY
SUMMARY: The entire country is expected to experience relatively cloudy weather conditions this morning, the cloudiness over the coast would be more pronounced. The northern half is expected to experience sunny weather conditions with few clouds in the afternoon. Isolated rains are expected over the southern half especially, the coastal zone of the country in the late afternoon to the evening.
REGIONAL FORECAST
REGIONS TEMP-MIN/°C TEMP-MAX/°C
WEATHER BRIEF
UPPER EAST
22
33
FEW CLOUDS/SUNNY PERIOD
UPPER WEST
22
32
FEW CLOUDS/SUNNY PERIOD
NORTHERN
24
34
FEW CLOUDS/SUNNY PERIOD
BRONG AHAFO
24
31
PARTLY CLOUDY/SUNNY PERIOD
ASHANTI
24
32
PARTLY CLOUDY/SUNNY PERIO/ISO RAINS
VOLTA
23
30
PARTLY CLOUDY/SUNNY PERIO/ISO RAINS
EASTERN
23
31
PARTLY CLOUDY/SUNNY PERIO/ISO RAINS
WESTERN
22
29
PARTLY CLOUDY/SUNNY INT/SCT RAINS
CENTRAL
23
29
PARTLY CLOUDY/SUNNY INT/ISO RAINS
GREATER ACCRA
23
29
PARTLY CLOUDY/SUNNY INT/ISO RAINS
ISO=ISOLATED, SCT=SCATTED
ISSUED AT 0500 UTC DATE 13/06/2016
BY GHANA METEOROLOGICAL AGENCY
FORECAST DIVISION, KOTOKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, ACCRA.
Cabinet has directed the Ministry of Transport to hand over the operations of the PSC Tema Shipyard and Dry Dock Company Limited (PSCT) to the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority (GPHA).
Per the decision, Government expects the Tema Shipyard to attract the needed resources to venture into the building of Floating Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO) Vessels for the oil and gas industry.
It would also continue to provide services to the ports and harbours and related sectors in the short to medium term, a statement issued by the Minister of Communications, Dr Omane Boamah Monday announced.
The decision to hand over the shipyard was taken at the 41st meeting of Cabinet chaired by President John Dramani Mahama.
TOR takes over offshore mooring facility
At the said meeting, Cabinet also approved the takeover of an offshore mooring facility from Trafigura, free from encumbrances, at the end of the concession by the Ministry of Petroleum.
The Ministry will thereafter transfer the facility to the Tema Oil Refinery (TOR) for its use over a period of fifteen (15) years.
“This is part of government’s initiatives to comprehensively reposition TOR in Ghana’s downstream petroleum sector to offer regular supply of petroleum products to Ghanaians and our neighbouring countries,” the statement said.
“The decisions taken to transfer the PSCT to the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority and the provision of a mooring facility for the use of TOR are expected to contribute significantly to efforts being made to create more jobs through diversification and value addition to our raw materials,” it added.
The mooring facility, which is a loading buoy anchored offshore, will also serve as a point of interconnection for tankers loading or offloading gas or liquid petroleum products.
Affirmative action bill, financing for Kumasi Central Market approved
Other decisions taken by Cabinet are the approval of an Affirmative Action Bill and a $97,450,000 financing for the second tranche of the modernization of the Kumai Central Market and Kejetia Infrastructure Projects.
Ongoing works to modernize the Kumasi Central Market and the Kejetia Infrastructure Project being worked on by 340 workers has reached an advance stage and will provide a modern and befitting environment for traders and their customers particularly women who regularly visit the market.
The Affirmative Action Bill seeks to advance and ensure women empowerment with the view to according females the enabling and progressive environment in Ghana.
President Mahama urged all Ghanaians including, traditional and religious leaders, civil society organisations, non-governmental organisations, workers, academia and students to support the passage of the bill as it makes its way to parliament for consideration and approval.
“Considering the progress Ghana has made in her democratic journey, the Affirmative Action Bill is deemed to be appropriate, responsive, fit for purpose, progressive and long overdue”, President Mahama said during the discussions on the Bill.
On 19th May, 2016 the Supreme Court of Ghana by a 4:1 majority decision in Ex Parte Dr. Zanetor Rawlings[1] granted an order of certiorari and an order for stay of proceedings against the High Court, Accra, presided over by His Lordship Ackaah-Boafo J. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed an error law by assuming jurisdiction to hear a dispute that implicates article 94(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution. The Supreme Court further suo motu raised the following interpretive question for determination: “When can it be properly said that a Ghanaian citizen is by reason of non registration as a voter ‘not qualified to be a member of Parliament’ within article 94(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution?”
Dr. Zanetor Rawlings
This paper critiques the decision of the Supreme Court in granting an order of certiorari and a consequential order for stay of proceedings against the High Court, Accra, in Ex Parte Dr. Zanetor Rawlings. It provides a scholarly analysis of the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by the Supreme Court over other superior courts in Ghana. It surmises that the decision of the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Dr. Zanetor Rawlings exposes the High Court of Ghana to excessive interference by the apex court in the administration of justice. This prognosis, it is argued, threatens to undermine the High Court as the primary protector/enforcer of fundamental human rights; the decision also threatens to undermine the High Court as the Court with the primary jurisdiction to hear disputes over parliamentary elections/primaries.[2] For the avoidance of doubt, this exposition is without prejudice to any plausible interpretive-coloration that may be placed on Article 94(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution by the Supreme Court of Ghana.
Before elaborating further on the lapses in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Dr. Zanetor Rawlings, section 2 sets out the facts that gave rise to the case, both at the High Court and at the Supreme Court. Section 3 deals with the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Dr Zanetor Rawlings. It also highlights some of the commons grounds in both the majority and minority decisions in Ex Parte Dr. Zanetor Rawlings. Section 4 sets out in detail the established contours of the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by the Supreme Court over other superior courts in Ghana. This section draws on the discussion in the preceding section and analyses the decisions of the Supreme Court in the light of established positions of the law on the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction over the High Court. We conclude by submitting that the decision of the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Dr. Zanetor Rawlings sets a wrong precedent in the exercise of supervisory powers over the High Court in Ghana. Section 5 concludes the discussion.
Ex Parte Dr. Zanetor Rawlings
The High Court Case
The facts which formed the basis of the substantive case in the High Court were as follows: Dr. Zanetor Agyeman Rawlings filed her nominations to contest the parliamentary primaries of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), a political party, for the Klottey Korle constituency. As usual, she went through the formalities required by the NDC and was cleared to contest. On 21st November 2015, the NDC conducted nation-wide parliamentary primaries in Ghana (including Klottey Korle Constituency). Dr. Zanetor Rawlings polled 2739 votes. The incumbent MP Hon. Nii Ashietey polled 1747 and one Nii John Alfonso Coleman polled 152 votes.
Subsequently, the Plaintiffs (Hon. Nii Ashietey & Nii John Alfonso Coleman) commenced an action in the High Court against the NDC and Dr. Zanetor Rawlings for a number of reliefs, including: (a) A declaration that the decision by the 1st Defendant (NDC) to allow the 2nd Defendant (Dr. Zanetor Rawlings) to contest parliamentary primaries in Klottey-Korle constituency when she was not a registered voter within the meaning of article 94(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution at the time of the said contest violates the Constitution and Internal Regulations governing the conduct of parliamentary primaries of the 1st Defendant and same is illegal and of no effect.” The Plaintiff sought other consequential reliefs which are not relevant for our present purposes.
The 2nd Plaintiff, Nii John Alfonso Coleman, bowed out of the case perhaps as a result of political pressure. The Electoral Commission was also taken out after the Commission respond
ed positively to the interrogatories of the lawyers for the Plaintiff as to whether Dr. Zanetor Rawlings was a registered voter at the time of the said contest. The confirmation of the Electoral Commission in a letter dated 26th February 2016 was that Dr. Zanetor Agyeman Rawlings was then not a registered voter. The legal tussle in the High Court then continued between the Plaintiff, Hon. Nii Armah Ashietey on the one hand and the NDC & Dr. Zanetor Rawlings (as Defendants) on the other hand. While the case was pending, Dr. Zanetor Rawlings took advantage of the limited registration exercise of the Electoral Commission and registered on 28th April 2016, however.
During the pendency of the suit in the High Court, Dr. Zanetor Rawlings, through her lawyers, brought two different applications to dismiss the substantive suit. The contention in the first application was that the Plaintiff lacked the requisite capacity to institute the action because his ‘personal rights’ have not been violated, that the Plaintiff was estopped from complaining after having taken part in the primaries and further that the Plaintiff had not exhausted the internal dispute resolution mechanisms of the NDC.
On 22nd February 2016, the High Court, presided over by Ackaah-Boafo J. dismissed the application on grounds that the Plaintiff, being a contestant in the primaries and a member of the NDC, had sufficient interest in the subject matter of the suit. The High Court further held that when a national constitution is said to have been breached, a political party’s internal mechanisms and remedies cannot be the panacea; neither could an estoppel be a viable defence. Dissatisfied with this Ruling, lawyers for Dr. Zanetor Rawlings filed an appeal and same is pending at the Court of Appeal, Accra.
The second application in the High Court contended that the Plaintiff’s action was premature because the cause of action had not accrued as required by articles 94 and 99 of the 1992 Constitution. It further contended that the jurisdiction of the High Court was wrongfully invoked by the Plaintiff to enforce article 94(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution and that Article 94(1)(a) only becomes operational when the NDC takes steps to register a candidate after the Electoral Commission has opened nominations for
registration. The High Court heard arguments and on 22nd March 2016 the Court dismissed the application on grounds that the application was unmeritorious, vexatious and a clear abuse of the court process. Dissatisfied with this second Ruling, Dr. Zanetor Rawlings invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court pursuant to article 132 of the 1992 Constitution and Rule 61 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I. 16) for an order of certiorari to bring up the ruling of His Lordship Ackaah-Boafo J. dated 22nd March 2016 for the purposes of being quashed.
The Supreme Court Case
The casus belli of Dr. Zanetor’s application in the Supreme Court was that the High Court presided over by His Lordship Ackaah-Boafo J. has acted in excess of its jurisdiction. This ground is captured in the application as follows: “(1) The Learne
d Judge erred in law when he wrongly assumed jurisdiction to interpret Article 94(1)(a) of the Constitution [by] holding that once the Applicant had put herself out as a contestant in the parliamentary primaries of the National Democratic Congress she was caught by article 94(1)(a) which required that she was a registered voter at the time of her participation in the primaries. (2) The Learned Judge erred in law when he wrongly assumed jurisdiction when the entire action was premature because the cause of action has not accrued.” For the Applicant, the High Court wrongly assumed jurisdiction to interpret and define the scope of application of article 94(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution when it dismissed her second application. These contentions were supported by the NDC, the 2nd Interested Party, at the Supreme Court.
The response of the 1st Interested Party (Hon. Nii Armah Ashietey) at the Supreme Court was that the application failed to meet the conditions needed for the grant of certiorari. He contended that the substantive case in the High Court bordered on the enforcement of the qualification rules governing the internal parliamentary primaries and the Constitution of the NDC. He further contended that since the High Court had not made any jurisdictional error, the avenue for redress opened to the aggrieved party was an appeal and not judicial review in the Supreme Court. Indeed, the 1st Interested Party emphasized that the Applicant (Dr. Zanetor Rawlings) had in fact exercised her right of appeal against the Ruling of the High Court by filing notice of appeal against the first interlocutory ruling.
The Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court delivered a 4:1 majority decision in favour of the Applicant – Dr. Zanetor Rawlings. The four justices who formed the majority were: Justice W.A. Atuguba, Justice A.A. Benin, Justice Yaw Apau, and Justice G. Pwamang; the dissenting judge was Justice Anin Yeboah. In plain language, the majority decision of the Supreme Court was to th
e effect that the High Court had wrongfully arrogated to itself the powers to interpret Article 94(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution, a task which the Supreme Court said was reserved solely for it. The Supreme Court further held that the suit between Hon. Ashietey and the NDC/Dr. Zanetor Rawlings concerned the interpretation of Article 94(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution. Atuguba JSC, delivering the majority decision, opined:
“…in his Ruling the trial judge did not consider the relevance of the contentions based on article 94(1)(a) namely that as far as the applicant and the 2nd Interested party were concerned article 94(1)(a) of the constitution could not be breached until the Electoral Commission opened nominations for parliamentary candidature but that as far as the 1st Interested Party was concerned the only relevant time in this matter was at the time of the contest of the National Democratic Congress primaries. Which of these contentions can be readily said to be right or wrong on the face of article 94(1)(a) of the Constitution? Clearly an issue of interpretation of article 94(1)(a) had in the circumstances arisen which the trial judge did not appreciate in his Ruling…the trial judge had clearly ruled that that article 94(1)(a) is clear and unambiguous and therefore the court was merely called upon to apply it. It is clearly an error of law to regard article 94(1)(a) in the manner the trial judge did. Clearly an issue of interpretation had arisen concerning article 94(1)(a)and the trial judge should have stayed proceedings and referred that issue to this court under article 130(2) of the Constitution by way of interpretation.”[3]
Consequently, the Court granted an order of certiorari to quash the two Rulings of the High Court dated 22nd February 2016 and 22nd March 2016. For purposes of emphasis, the Ruling of the High Court on 22nd February 2016 was to the effect that the Court had jurisdiction to hear the Klottey-Korle case, that the Plaintiff (Hon. Ashietey) had
sufficient interest in the matter and that the internal dispute resolution mechanisms of the NDC cannot oust the jurisdiction of the Court. The Ruling of the High Court on 22nd March 2016 was to the effect that the High Court was not being called upon to interpret article 94(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution. Rather the High Court was being invited to apply the Regulation and Constitution of the NDC as well as article 94(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution.
Even though Dr. Zanetor Rawlings’ application was in respect of the 22nd March 2016 Ruling, the Supreme Court held that “both aforementioned Rulings ought to be quashed for error of law on the face of the record.”[4] It further ordered the High Court to stay proceedings in the matter until the Supreme Court had interpreted the meaning and scope of application of Article 94(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution. Whether or not the High Court can have a second meaningful bite at the Klottey Korle cherry of the NDC would depend on the outcome of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 94(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution, which provides “…a person shall not be qualified to be a member of Parliament unless he is a citizen of Ghana, has attained the age of twenty-one years and is a registered voter.” (emphasis added)
A single Justice took what he called a ‘solitary path’ by delivering a dissenting opinion. As we will elaborate, the dissenting opinion and other reported decisions expose the apparent inconsistency that is creeping into judicial decision making at the apex Court of the land in matters of the exercise of supervisory jurisidction. Anin Yeboah JSC held that “article 94(1)(a) is devoid of any ambiguity in anyway whatsoever.” In affirming earlier Supreme Court
decisions in Republic v. Maikankan& Others[5] and Aduamoa II & Others v. Adu Twum II,[6] Anin Yeboah JSC held that the original jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court to interpret the provisions of the 1992 Constitution was a special jurisdiction meant to be invoked in suits raising genuine and real issues of constitutional interpretation. He noted that upon a closer reading of the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff at the High Court, it becomes abundantly clear that the High Court was never called upon to interpret article 94(1)(a) of the Constitution. Accordingly, “a mere reference to a provision of the Constitution for a court lower than the Supreme Court to consider would not amount to interpretation as envisaged under articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution.”[7]
Anin Yeboah JSC further highlighted the need for a restatement of the law by clearly distinguishing between the interpretation of a constitutional provision and the application of a constitutional provision in cases which are filed before the Supreme Court. In the opinion of the dissenting Justice, “the High Court Judge was merely applying the provisions of article 94(1)(a) of the Constitution and no more.”[8] Elsewhere, in the United States of America, the exercise of sieving cases which end up at the Supreme Court is undertaken by a Single Justice. This saves the full panel of the US Supreme Court f
rom hearing a lot of unmeritorious claims.
Common Grounds
There were a number of common grounds in the majority and minority decisions in Ex Parte Dr. Zanetor Rawlings. All the Justices of the Supreme Court agreed that the High Court has jurisdiction to hear disputes involving internal parliamentary primaries of political parties. The majority opined that “the contention that the trial court should be prohibited from hearing the matter on jurisdictional grounds is misconceived. The parliamentary primaries in the Klottey-Korle constituency in this case were conducted vastly in accordance with the National Democratic Congress party’s constitution and guidelines. Such rules of a club or voluntary association are enforceable by the High Court; see Pennie v. Egala (1980) GLR 234. The involvement of article 94(1)(a) in the matter did not deprive the High Court of its jurisdiction”[9]
The above position of the majority is supported by the dissenting opinion. According to Anin Yeboah JSC, “if one carefully considers the reliefs sought by the 1st Interested Party at the High Court, it becomes abundantly clear that the High Court was never called upon to interpret article 94(1)(a) of the Constitution.”[10] Rather “the High Court Judge was merely applying the constitutional provisions of article 94(1)(a) of the Constitution and no more…the applicant has not successfully satisfied this court that the High Court Judge committed any jurisdictional error to warrant our intervention.”[11] Since the basis of the application for certiorari by Dr. Zanetor Rawlings was that the High Court lacked jurisdiction, the application ought to have failed stricto sensu (i.e, in a narrow or strict sense). Such an approach is consistent with the adversarial system of adjudication in Ghana.
Another common lesson from the decision of the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Dr, Zanetor Rawlings is the distinction between interpretation and application of the Constitution. Whereas lower courts can apply the provisions of the 1992 Constitution in resolving disputes before them, matters of interpretation of the provisions of the 1992 Constitution is reserved solely for the Supreme Court. As Atuguba adumbrates, “the involvement of article 94(1)(a) in the matter did not depr
ive the High Court of its jurisdiction”[12] In the opinion of Anin Yeboah, “…it would serve a purpose for our profession to state that a clear distinction should be drawn between the interpretation of a constitutional provision and application of a constitutional provision in cases which are filed before [the Supreme Court] for adjudication.”[13]
The decision also emphasized that the inclusion of a constitutional provision in a matter before the High Court does not ipso facto (i.e, by the fact itself) make it a constitutional matter for which reason the High Court can be deprived of its jurisdiction. In the opinion of Anin Yeboah, “a mere reference to a provision of the Constitution for a court lower than the Supreme Court to consider would not amount to interpretation as envisaged under articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution.”[14] For Atuguba, “the parliamentary primaries in the Klottey Korle constituency in this case were conducted vastly in accordance with the National Democratic Congress party’s constitution and guidelines. Such rules of a club or voluntary association are enforceable by the High Court; see Pennie v. Egala (1980) GLR 234. The involvement of article 94(1)(a) in the matter did not deprive the High Court of its jurisdiction”[15]
That notwithstanding, the Supreme Court relied on its residual powers and granted the certiorari application on the basis of an error of law on the face of the record. The nature of the error on the face of the record, the majority opinion failed to elucidate. The question whether a mere mention of a constitutional provisions in the claims before the High Court triggers the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was not competently answered by the majority decision in Ex Parte Dr. Zanetor Rawlings.
However, the prayer of the Applicant “for any such further or other orders as this court may deem fit” was considered sufficient by the majority to raise an interpretative questions for determination as to: “when can it be properly said that a Ghanaian citizen is by reason of non registration as a voter ‘not qualified to be a member of Parliament’ within article 94(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution?” It follows that a closer reading of the judgment
discloses that the Supreme Court rather relied on its ‘residual other bases’ in granting certiorari and stay of proceedings in Ex Parte Dr. Zanetor Rawlings. Those other bases and the dangers associated with them will be elaborated upon in the ensuing paragraphs.
The Province of Supervising the High Court
The Supreme Court is a supervisor of other superior courts in Ghana. This province of supervising the High Court has never been fixed. But the apparent lack of fixedness in supervising the High Court is no invitation for the Supreme Court to adopt an interventionist approach in supervising the High Court. The exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by the Supreme Court involves the exercise of discretionary powers; this exercise of discretion must not be arbitrary, capricious or biased, and same shall be in accordance with due process of law.[16]
The exercise of supervisory jurisdiction allows the Supreme Court to issue prerogative writs or orders in the nature of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, and quo warranto.[17] The exercise of this special judicial review powers by the Supreme Court over other superior courts is narrower; it is thus different from the relatively more expansive exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by the High Court over inferior courts and administrative agencies/tribunals.[18] In the exercise of supervisory jurisdictions, whereas the High Court adopts a tighter oversight role over inferior tribunals, administrative agencies and officials; the Supreme Court of Ghana is required to take into account the status of the High Court as a court of unlimited jurisdiction.
In Republic v. High Court, Accra; Ex Parte CHRAJ (Addo Interested Party), the Supreme Court unanimously stated that:
“Where the High Court (or for that matter the Court of Appeal) makes a non-jurisdictional error of law which is not patent on the face of the record, the avenue for redress open to an aggrieved party is an appeal, not judicial review. In this regard, an error of law made by the High Court or the Court of Appeal is not to be regarded as taking the judge outside the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court has acted ultra vires the Constitution or an express statutory restriction validly imposed on it.[19]
The constituent elements of the restatement of the law governing the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction over other superior courts confirm the inherent restraint on the Supreme Court. In contrast the High Court exercises wider supervisory jurisdiction over administrative agencies/officials/tribunals. The restraint on the Supreme Court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction over other superior courts is in recognition of the stature of the High Court and the need not to treat them like inferior courts.[20]
The technical grounds upon which the Supreme Court exercises its supervisory jurisdiction over other superior courts include: (i) fundamental error on the face of the record; (ii) excess or want of jurisdiction; and (iii) breach of rules of natural justice (i.e., the twin principles of nemo judex causa sua and audi alteram partem).[21] The fact that the above technical grounds are established does not necessarily follow that the Supreme Court will pro tanto (i.e., for such much) grant a remedy.[22]
The Supreme Court has however been quick to add that the above three technical grounds are not exhaustive. The non-exhaustive nature of the technical grounds for supervising the High Court has emboldened the Supreme Court to draw on ‘other bases’ for the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction over the High Court. Those other bases allow the Supreme Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction in ways which do not fall within the zone of the prerogative writs.
In British Airways & Anor. v. Attorney General,[23] Bamford-Addo JSC proclaimed the ‘other supervisory powers’ of the Supreme Court thus: “…the Supreme Court may issue prerogative orders, as well as appropriate orders, and directions, to lower courts to ensure the proper, lawful, and fair administration of justice in any matter which comes before it.”[24] The other bases for supervising the High Court, among others, are intended to prevent apparent illegalities and injustices in matters before such lowers courts.
In Ex Parte Dr. Zanetor Rawlings, the High Court was adjudged not to have wrongly assumed jurisdiction in the matter. When all seemed lost, the Supreme Court exercised its supervisory powers on the basis that an issue of interpretation of article 94(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution has arisen in the proceedings before the High Court. For the majority, it is in the interest of justice to resort to some other expeditious remedy rather than the traditional common law remedies of certiorari, prohibition, etc. Respectfully, this “other bases” that the Supreme Court relied upon in the exercise it its supervisory jurisdiction over the High Court in Ex Parte Dr. Zanetor Rawlings is fraught with landmines and susceptible to abuse in high profile/political cases.
Accordingly, clear guidelines need to be devised to check the exercise of unbridle discretion in the supervision of the High Court by the Supreme Court. This can come in a form of a restatement of the law on the scope of the referencing jurisdiction under article 130(2) of the 1992 Constitution. This re-statement should be done by at least a nine-member panel of the Supreme Court and it must be unanimous.
Thus far, the approach adopted by the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Dr. Zanetor Rawlings would encourage ‘me too’ referrals or referral of petty questions of law to the Supreme Court. The decision will also embolden lawyers to present almost every significant action as an interpretation or enforcement action or both in order to stultify proceedings in the trial courts. In order not to encourage such practices, the administration of justice in the superior courts should not be unduly interfered with by the Supreme Court.
Unsettling Established Legal Principles
The decision of the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Dr. Zanetor Rawlings has the tendency to unsettle very well established principles of constitutional law and jurisprudence. One such long established principle of constitutional law which the decision unsettles is the interpretation of article 130(2) of the 1992 Constitution. This Article provides that “where an issue that relates to a matter or question referred to in clause (1) of this article arises in any proceedings in a court other than the Supreme Court, that court shall stay the proceedings and refer the question of law involved to the Supreme Court for determination and the court in which the question arose shall dispose of the case in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court.” Similar constitutional provisions were contained in article 106(2) of the 1969 Constitution and Article 118(2) of the 1979 Constitution.
In Republic v. Maikankan[25], the then Supreme Court gave a perceptive analysis of the ‘reference requirements’ of the above constitutional provisions. Bannerman CJ in interpreting Article 106 of the 1969 Constitution, which is on all fours with article 130 of the 1992 Constitution, stated
“We wish to comment that a lower court is not bound to refer to the Supreme Court every submission alleging as an issue the determination of a question of interpretation of the Constitution or of any other matter contained in Article 106(1)(a)(b) of the [1969] Constitution. If in the opinion of the lower court the answer to a submission is clear and unambiguous on the face of the provisions of the Constitution or laws of Ghana, no reference need be made since no question of interpretation arises and a person who disagrees with or is aggrieved by the ruling of the lower court has his remedy by the normal way of appeal, if he so chooses. To interpret the provisions of Article 106(2) of the Constitution in any other way may entail and encourage references to the Supreme Court of frivolous submissions, some of which may be intended to stultify proceedings or the due process of law may lead to delays such as may in fact amount to denial of justice.”[26]
This position of the law has been restated and affirmed in a plethora of cases to the effect that there must be a real or genuine issue of interpretation or enforcement of the provision of the Constitution in order to trigger the reference jurisdiction under article 130(2) of the 1992 Constitution.[27] The worth of the above statement of law is underscored by all. For law students, lecturers, legal practitioners and judges, the principle of the law in the Maikankan case is akin to ius cogens, a compelling principle of law from which no derogation is permitted. The Maikankan decision has survived all the ravages of the constitutional and military regimes of Ghana since 1971. Indeed, thousands of cases have relied on the ratio in the Maikankan case as sound precedent and the decision remains the most authoritative statement on the triggers of the reference jurisdiction under article 130(2) of the 1992 Constitution.
However, on 19th May 2016 the majority decision of the Supreme Court in Exparte Dr. Zanetor Rawlings sought to undermine this long-established decision. Atuguba JSC remarked in Ex Parte Dr. Zanetor Rawlings thus: “It has to be realized that the initial stance of the Supreme Court exemplified by cases such as Republic v. Maikankan (1971) 2 GLR 473, SC; Republic v. Special Tribunal; Ex Parte Akosah (1980) GLR 592 C.A.; Adumoa II v. Adu Twum (2000) SCGLR 165 which laid emphasis on the plain meaning of a statute preceded the new era of constitutional interpretation based on the now dominant principle of purposive construction of statutes, particularly the constitution.”
With respect, the above remarks by Atuguba JSC on the changing face of the law on referrals to the Supreme Court pursuant to article 130(2) of the 1992 Constitution is a dangerous proposition of law. The decision by the majority in Ex Parte Dr. Zanetor Rawlings that the new era of purposive interpretation admits of a reversal of pre-1993 precedents dealing with referral of questions of law to the Supreme Court is untenable. It is rather a ruse and subtle mask to unsettle established principles of constitutional law and such legal transmogrifications ought not to be tolerated.
The basic rules of interpretation including the purposive approach and its myriad nomenclature have gotten nothing to do with the constitutional mandate to refer matters of constitutional interpretation to the Supreme Court. Indeed, our basic understanding of the rules of interpretation is that they are servants and not masters in the application of the law.[28] It goes without saying that under no circumstance should reliance on the so-called purposive approach to interpretation create a situation the supports the unbridled resort to the reference jurisdiction under article 130(2) of the 1992 Constitution.
Respectfully, the statement of the law in the Maikankan case still remains the correct position of the law today. Attempts to unsettle this trite position of the law will overburden the Supreme Court with ‘me too’ or petty certiorari and prohibition applications; Unsettling the position of the law in the Maikankan case would run counter to the letter and spirit of 1992 Constitution.
The real intent of article 130 of the 1992 Constitution is perspicaciously stated in Aduamoah II v. Adu Twum II:[29] “the original jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court…was a special jurisdiction meant to be invoked in suits raising genuine and real issues of interpretation of a provision of the Constitution; or the enforcement of a provisions of the Constitution or a question whether an enactment was made ultra vires Parliament, or any other authority or person by law or under the Constitution. This special jurisdiction is not meant to usurp or to be resorted in place of the jurisdiction or a lower court; so that where the said jurisdiction had been invoked in an action which properly fell within a particular cause of action at a lower court, the Supreme Court would refuse to assume jurisdiction in that action, notwithstanding the fact that it had been presented as interpretation or enforcement actions or both.”[30]
The Supreme Court, having held that the High Court had jurisdiction in the case of Hon. Nii Ashietey v. NDC & Dr. Zanetor Agyemang Rawlings, the Court ought not to have exercised its supervisory jurisdiction over the High Court in the manner that it did. Indeed matters of parliamentary electoral disputes are within the jurisdiction of the High Court. For instance, it is common knowledge that presidential election petition supposed to be filed in the Supreme Court;[31] parliamentary election petitions are supposed to be filed in the High Court.[32]
It was for this reason that the Supreme Court dismissed an action invoking the court’s jurisdiction for a declaration that JH Mensah was not qualified to be a Member of Parliament pursuant to article 94(1)(b) of the 1992 Constitution. This article provides that “…a person shall not be qualified to be a member of parliament unless – he is a resident in the constituency…or has resided there for a total of period of not less than five years out of ten years immediately preceding the election…or he hails from that constituency.” The Plaintiff’s claim was that JH Mensah did not satisfy the residential requirement imposed by article 94(1)(b) of the 1992 Constitution before he got himself elected as a Member of Parliament for Sunyani East Constituency.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court, and not the Supreme Court, was the proper forum for determining the Plaintiff’s action, which was in substance an election petition to challenge the validity of the defendant’s election to Parliament. Since parliamentary primaries are a step towards contesting in the national parliamentary elections, disputes arising therefrom fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court. The Supreme Court therefore ought not to have adopted an interventionist approach in supervising the High Court, as it did in Ex Parte Dr. Zanetor Rawlings.
Furthermore, it is our contention that reference to article 94(1)(a) in the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff in the High Court was ancillary to the determination of the claims as to whether Dr. Zanetor Rawlings was qualified to contest as a parliamentary candidate in the primaries of the NDC in Klottey Korle constituency in the light of the Regulations for the primaries and the Constitution of the NDC. The claims in the High Court bordered on whether Dr. Zanetor Rawlings, based on the rules of the NDC, was qualified to contest in the primaries as of 21st November 2015. Such claims did not raise any genuine or real interpretive constitutional-question for the intervention of the Supreme Court of Ghana.
What error of law?:
The Supreme Court held in Ex Parte Dr. Zanetor Rawlings that the High Court had committed an error of law on the face of the record. Of course a fundamental error of law apparent on the face of the record is a basis for the grant of certiorari against the High Court. The Supreme Court however failed to provide reasons why it so held. Is the Supreme Court saying that the High Court’s decision that it was not being called upon to interpret the Constitution but rather merely being called upon to apply the law the error of law it was talking about? That cannot be. Further, is the Supreme Court saying that the mere mention of a constitutional provisions as part of the claims in the Court sufficient to invoke its interpretive jurisdiction? Encouraging such a viewpoint will be a recipe for disaster.
Moreover, the position of the law is that it is not every error that is amenable to certiorari. For a certiorari to issue, the error of law must be fundamental, substantial, material, grave or so serious as to go to the root of the matter. Further, the error of law complained about should be the one on which the decision depends. In Republic v. Court of Appeal; Ex Parte Tsatsu Tsikata,[33] the Supreme Court observed that the intervention powers of the Supreme Court are to be used to prevent plain illegality or injustice. Wood JSC (as she then was) noted:
The clear thinking of this court is that our supervisory jurisdiction under article 132 of the 1992 Constitution should be exercised only in those manifestly plain and obvious cases, where there patent errors of law on the face of the record, which errors either go to the jurisdiction or are so plain as to make the impugned decision a complete nullity. It stands to reason then that error(s) of law alleged must be fundamental, substantial, material, grave or so serious as to go to the root of the matter. The error of law must be one on which the decision depends. A minor, trifling, inconsequential or unimportant error, or for that matter an error which does not go to the core or root of the decision complained of; or stated differently, on which the decision does not turn, would not attract the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.[34]
By merely stating the there was an error on the face of the record (when in fact no interpretation had been done by the High Court) for which reason certiorari should issue against the High Court, the Supreme Court has unsettled its own precedent in Ex Parte Tsatsu Tsikata. Indeed a mere error on the face of the record is not enough to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; the error has to be fundamental, substantial, material, grave or so serious as to go to the root of the matter. Wherein lay the fundamental error in the Rulings of the High Court to necessitate the exercise of supervisory powers by the Supreme Court?
Of course article 129(3) permits the Supreme Court to depart from its previous decisions, but such a departure must be based on convincing and well reasoned justifications. The provisions of the 1992 Constitution also allows for significant clarification and restatement of the law by the Supreme Court when necessary. Such an approach was adopted in Ex Parte CHRAJ decision and same is needed in regards to the scope of article 130(2) of the 1992 Constitution.
For now, the spirit and letter of the 1992 Constitution does not permit the Supreme Court to unsettle long established principles of law in the manner as it sought to do in Ex Parte Dr Zanetor Rawlings. The Supreme cannot rely on the so-called purposive approach to interpretation to unsettle well-established principles of law. Respectfully, the purposive approach to interpretation cannot transmogrify itself into an unruly horse in the administration of justice.
Conclusions
This paper provides a critical assessment of the decision of the Supreme Court of Ghana in Ex Parte Dr. Zanetor Rawlings. The majority decision in Ex Parte Dr. Zanetor Rawlings unsettles long established principles of law in regards to the grounds for referring matters of constitutional interpretation to the Supreme Court. The decision also adopts an interventionists approach in the supervision of the High Court. In relating the decision to the established positions of the law on how the Supreme Court supervises other superior courts, we urge restraint on the part of the Supreme Court; we also justify the need for the Supreme Court not to treat the High Court like an inferior court. Recognizing this reality provides new vistas for the Supreme Court to restate the law on referring questions of law for determination at the apex court. This way, the Supreme would not be saddled with ‘me too’ or petty referrals from other courts pursuant to article 130(2) of the 1992 Constitution.
[1]Republic v. High Court, General Jurisdiction, Accra; Exparte Dr. Zanetor A. Rawlings (Hon. Nii Armah Ashietey & NDC Interested Parties) [J5/19/2016]. Coram: majority – Atuguba, Benin, Appau and Pwamang JJSC; dissenting: Anin Yeboah JSC. [hereinafter Ex Parte Dr. Zanetor Rawlings ].
The Vodafone Unity Match between the Appiah World XI and the Black Stars at the Accra Sports Stadium ended in a thrilling 4:2 in favour of the Black Stars.
The match, which was the second for the Appiah World XI in helping to promote peace and unity ahead of the upcoming elections, saw the former professionals lose to Kotoko by 4:1 in the first of the two matches in Kumasi Sports Stadium.
Sulley Muntari and Yakubu Ayigbene who both featured for the Appiah World XI scored a goal each for the professionals with Ebenezer Assifuah getting a brace for the Black Stars with Alfred Duncan and Thomas Partey scoring a goal each to round the game for the Black Stars.
The peace crusade, which was the brain child of event masters primeval media and peace ambassador, Stephen Appiah and a major sponsor of communication giants Vodafone Ghana saw active and ex- professional players unite to use football as a universal language to drive home peace message to Ghanaians before, during and after the impending presidential and parliamentary elections in Ghana.
The Appiah World XI consisted of Emile Heskey, Dwite Yoke, Edgar Davids, William Gallas, Sol Campbel, Alex Song,Kanu, Yakubu Ayigbene, Michael Essien, Sulley Muntari, Laryea Kingson, Richard Kingson, John Paintsil, Isaac Vorsah.
Leaders of faith-based and traditional societies in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis have called for concerted efforts to discourage homosexuality and other unnatural sexual practices, which they say, are gaining grounds in the country.
The leaders, who expressed their concerns at a meeting held at the Western Region House of Chiefs, in Sekondi, said there were reports of the rise in homosexuality, lesbianism, gayism and bisexualism, which were alien to Ghana’s culture.
They comprised pastors of orthodox, charismatic and Pentecostal churches, Muslim leaders, and chiefs and queenmothers.
The meeting was organised by the National Coalition for Proper Human Sexual Rights and Family Values, and held on the theme, “Curbing the Menace of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Activism”.
The Christian and Muslim leaders said their respective faiths abhorred these sexual practices because they were un-natural, while the traditional rulers said such practices desecrated their stools.
They encouraged the public to muster the courage to expose the perpetrators since they lived in the communities with them, while those who become victims must report to the law enforcement agencies for the perpetrators to be dealt with.
Speaking on the topic, “Homosexuality – The Psychiatric and Medical Perspectives”, Dr Akwasi Osei, the National Chief Psychiatrist, described the practices as “abnormality”, but said those who engaged in it had different perspectives.
Dr Osei, who is a member of the Coalition, said the practice had health implications, which could jeopardise the lives of the practitioners, so they must be discouraged.
Mr Moses Foh-Amoaning, the Executive Secretary of the Coalition, said the harmful effects of the practices, coupled with the youth the growing attraction of the youth to them, influenced the formation of the Coalition to educate the public against the dangers.
He appealed to all well-meaning citizens to support their cause to prevent Ghana’s future leaders from indulging in these social vices, which were detrimental to their wellbeing and careers.
Mr Foh-Amoaning said some African countries had decisively opposed the practice, hence Ghana must do same.
An energy expert, Kweku Awotwi, says the inefficiencies of the Electricity Company of Ghana [ECG] are more of managerial than collection of revenue and collusion.
He argued the current challenges being faced by the ECG should be blamed on the lack of necessary incentives.
“ECG inefficiencies are more than not just collecting and tampering and colluding…It’s a management issue. But if we don’t have the right incentives on top of ECG, we will struggle,” Mr Awotwi said on TV3’s Hot Issue on Saturday.
The former Volta River Authority Chief Executive observed that ECG and Northern Electricity Development Company have very capable engineers but “the incentive to collect, the incentive to collude are very high…”
“I think that for me, it’s a shame when I read in the paper that the President or the minister is worrying about metres. That should be somebody else’s job. This is where I think a private sector system is better placed with the incentives to get them to work.
Mr Awotwi, however, noted the problem could be fixed, noting, “there is no reason why we cant do it ourselves” but said it means a combination of things; like putting in place equipment and systems that minimise human intervention.
“There’s no reason why we can’t do this. I don’t think it’s an issue of foreign versus Ghanaian. I think the issue is very much more about systems in place, incentives in place, the sanctions in place if you don’t do things and I do think that [in] our current set up, those systems are not in place,” he said.
Touching on the plans to split the Volta River Authority, Mr Awotwi who is also the Principal of Africa Power Systems Management underscored the need to look at what he said is the systemic issues of the VRA.
He argued that if those issues could be addressed, there would not be the need to split the VRA, saying, “If we can address them, you don’t need to do that. If you don’t address them, then that is the solution.
“The indebtedness is clearly an issue. If they [VRA] had money they would buy spare parts, they would buy fuel. Its not all VRA’s doing… One really has to look at the systemic issues.
“If you split up and you still owe 180 million dollars to West African Gas Pipe Line, you’ve not moved, you do have to address certain things and from that point of view [splitting it] by itself is not enough.
By Stephen Kwabena Effah|3news.com|Ghana Twitter @steviekgh
Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the 2016 presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party, says the vision of his government, God-willing from 2017, will be to transform Ghana’s economy from an exporter of raw materials, and a retailer of cheap imported goods, to a modernised, industrialized one focused on value addition activities.
This industrilialization, he indicated, will go hand-in-hand with improving the productivity of agriculture, spurred on by the production and marketing of additional cash crops such as cotton, coffee, oil palm, cashew and maize, which will boost export earnings for the country.
“It is this twin-track of rapid industrial expansion and increase of agricultural productivity that will generate the hundreds of thousands of jobs that our young people need,” he added.
Nana Akufo-Addo made this known when he outlined a number policy measures to help realise this vision, at a fundraising dinner organized in London by the UK branch of the Young Executive Forum of the NPP on Friday, June 11, 2016.
Ghana’s new status as a producer and exporter of petroleum, he said, offers the perfect opportunity to create a petrochemical industry, including monetising the country’s gas to create a multibillion dollar gas feedstock industry.
“Our project is to make Ghana a regional production and manufacturing centre, by weaving together our numerous natural resources, such as our food produce, extensive cash crops, gold, bauxite, iron ore, oil and gas, with our talents and energy to turn our nation into an economic powerhouse in West Africa and beyond,” he added.
Policy Framework
Nana Akufo-Addo noted that his government will introduce policy measures which will stimulate production, expand the productive capacity of the economy, and create jobs.
Thus, “the tax, borrow and spend approach of the Mahama administration”, will be abandoned, in favour of policies geared towards the reducing the cost of doing business to help small scale enterprises grow, and to make the Ghanaian economy become globally competitive.
To this end, he assured businesses and their owners of a reduction in corporate tax rate, the abolishing of VAT on Financial Services, removal of duties on the importation of raw materials and manufacturing equipment, amongst other fiscal incentives, to stimulate growth of the private sector.
The NPP flagbearer also announced an “enhanced employment Tax Credit Scheme” to provide incentives for companies which employ fresh graduates, to help curb the rising levels of graduate unemployment in the country.
Additionally, Nana Akufo-Addo said his government will put in place an effective legal framework to anchor fiscal discipline, hinged on the passage and enforcement of a Fiscal Responsibility Act that has bite.
“It will require governments to declare and commit to a fiscal policy that can be met. It will include fiscal rules, including rules governing election year spending, provisions for transparency and sanctions, including sanctions on the Executive itself,” he said.
On the environment, an Akufo-Addo government, he said, will put in place a policy that will lead to the effective management of forest reserves, the recovery of millions of acres of land devastated by open-cast and alluvial mining, and the protection of our water bodies, stressing that “protecting our environment is a necessity, not an option.”
Referring to the NPP’s manifesto of 2012, which announced the introduction of apprenticeship and skills training programmes for the youth, including those failed by the education system, he reiterated his commitment towards the establishment of such a scheme, as this will give the youth the practical skills they need to get a job as well as to drive a new industrialised economy.
“In partnership with the private sector, we will facilitate and support rapid development of skills, including establishing apprenticeship training for graduates from vocational and technical schools,” he noted.
The NPP flagbearer also made a firm commitment to the election of District Chief Executives (DCEs) during his tenure of office, explaining that “the time has come to bring accountability to local government through competitive politics. The election of DCEs at the local level can no longer be delayed. This will bring a great boost to local initiative and local self-reliance.”
In tackling the rampant cases of corruption, which have become widespread under the Mahama government, he reiterated his commitment to appointing “an Independent Special Prosecutor with a legislative mandate to deal with corruption, who will be appointed and empowered to tackle corruption.”
The restoration of teacher and nursing training allowances, he said, is non-negotiable, and “in doing so, we are still committed to our program of free senior high school education for all students at that level.”
A concerted effort in deepening the process of women’s involvement in the country’s politics and economy, he assured, will be made, continuing “with the initiatives that led President Kufuor to establish the first Ministry of Women’s Affairs. Gender equity is a cardinal concern of our times.”
He continued, “we have committed ourselves to establish a Zongo Development Fund as part of a broader Inner City Development Strategy to support development activity in the Zongo and inner city communities, and it is a commitment we are going to keep.”
The creative arts and entertainment industry, he noted, will be benefit from a fund aimed at supporting the industry and to grow local talent and create jobs.
In concluding, he said “we are going to develop Ghana into an ICT hub in the region”, explaining that “these are the broad frameworks of what we are going to do if we win”.
Reverend D. Peter Issaka Azuma, the Director-General of Ghana Maritime Authority (GMA), says lack of patrol boats to enforce safety at the sea on the Volta Lake is a major constraint to the authority.
He said the GMA, which has a mission of creating a harmonious and enabling environment within the maritime industry to ensure the provision of safe, secure and efficient shipping operations in the seas and inland waters of the country is becoming impracticable especially with the absence of patrol boats.
This, he, said is making surveillance duties of the Authority difficult.
Dr Azuma made the observation on Wednesday when Mr Fifi Kwetey, the Transport Minister, paid a formal working visit to the management and staff of the GMA in Accra.
He also mentioned the lack of office space and GMA’s huge expenditure on insurance as other constraints adding: “Unfortunately too we do not have a sovereign guarantee.”
On the way forward, the Director-General of the GMA, noted that the installation and integration of underwater surveillance equipment into the Vessel Traffic Management Information System for the protection of subsea structures such as well drills would be some of the major works to be carried out by the GMA.
“Installing of booster boys between the Coast and Jubilee field and working with the Ghana Atomic Energy Commission to get better and efficient mechanisms to enhance safety navigation are also part of our goals to be achieved in the coming years,” he added.
Mr Fifi Kwetey urged the board and management of the GMA to work closely towards the practicable mandate of the authority.
He expressed happiness about the administrative and legislative mandate being achieved by the GMA for an all-inclusive working relationship between GMA and other public agencies.
“Together we are going to ensure maritime operations are going to be effective and work accurately.
“We need to work together to see and lead to take measures effectively,” he said.
Mr Kwetey noted that since shipping authorities have taken over the GMA, it is important that the provision of patrol boats is made available to the GMA to enhance and promote safety on the Volta Lake.
The GMA was established under Act 630 of 2002 and charged with the responsibility of monitoring, regulating and coordinating activities in the maritime industry.
Indian President, HE Pranab Mukherjee will be paying an official visit to Ghana tomorrow, Sunday.
The visit, which is part of a two-nation African tour will also take him to Côte d’Ivoire. The tour will end on Tuesday.
While in Ghana, President Mukherjee will hold discussions with President John Dramani Mahama after which a number of agreements will be signed between Ghana and India.
President Mukherjee will also visit the University of Ghana, the Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT and address a Business Forum.
He will also visit the Kwame Nkrumah Memorial Park and plant a tree at the Flagstaff House to signify the strong bond of friendship between India and Ghana.
The casus belli of Dr. Zanetor’s application in the Supreme Court was that the High Court presided over by His Lordship Ackaah-Boafo J. has acted in excess of its jurisdiction. This ground is captured in the application as follows: “(1) The Learne
