The 1992 constitution has clothed the three arms of government with authority to be independent of each other, but the exercise of independence must not be at variance with the same constitution. It becomes worrying when these arms of government engage in standoffs in the name of exercising their respective independence and authority.
For some weeks now, the Executive and Legislature have been at each other’s throat over the issue of the transmission of the Anti-Gay bill and the approval of new ministers.
The Executive Secretary to the President wrote to the Clerk to Parliament to cease and desist from transmitting the Anti-Gay bill to the President for his assent, due to the pending legal tussle.
The Speaker of Parliament got furious and also directed that the legislature cease working to approve the new ministerial nominees until the determination of the suit against parliament in that regard.
These developments caused tension in the country, but before the dust could settle, the judiciary has also found itself in the same entanglement.
The judiciary has come under attack for listing the case involving the approval of the new nominees for hearing, but has yet to schedule the other cases for the President not to assent to the Anti-Gay bill.
The cases in contention are Rockson-Nelson Etse K. Dafeamekpor asking the court to order the President to seek parliamentary approval to re-assign his ministers and Richard Dela Sky challenging the constitutionality of the Sexual Human Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024.
Richard Sky filed his writ of summons in the Supreme Court on March 5, 2024 and Dafeamekpor also did so on March 18, 13 days after.
The opposition NDC, in a statement on Tuesday, said it was intrigued by the listing of the Dafeamekpor case for hearing ahead of the case of Richard Dela Sky v. the Parliament of Ghana and the Attorney-General.
Since it became known that the Dafeamekpor case had been listed for hearing over that of Richard Sky, tension in the political space has heightened, with the public questioning the criteria for the selection of cases to be heard.
We acknowledge the right of the Chief Justice to decide which cases to be listed for hearing. The Chronicle is, therefore, not seeking to condemn the decision to choose the recent case over the earlier one.
However, we tend to agree with the school of thought that, looking at the tense political nature of the country, the two legal suits brought against the Executive arm and the Legislative arm of government would have been fair, if the cases were listed for hearing based on the dates they were filed.
Though the Attorney General is reported to have filed for an expedited action on the Dafeamekpor case; this information was not in the public domain before the NDC issued the statement.
With a political atmosphere that is boiling, especially as the nation laces its boots towards the 2024 general elections, the political actors are easily triggered by any little suspicion and the judiciary must be seen as the bastion of hope and last resort in times of misunderstanding.
We must emphasise that the constitutional right of the Chief Justice to exercise administrative discretion cannot be challenged in any shape or form.
However, we suggest that such an exercise must not lend credence to the perception of bias on the part of the judiciary.
We advise the judiciary to undertake intensive public education on the basic processes of the courts, in particular about the scheduling of cases, the selection of judges to sit on cases and any other issue the public might have wrong perception about.
The 4th Republic is the longest since independence and all of us have the duty to safeguard it. In that regard, the three arms of government must help each other to ensure harmony, but not to heighten tensions, which can plunge the nation into mayhem.
