TThe 1992 Constitution of Ghana stands as the supreme law of the land. No legislation can override its authority, and any law found to be inconsistent with it is automatically rendered unconstitutional (Article 1(2)). Unlike ordinary statutes, this Constitution was directly approved by the people through a national referendum, making it truly a law of the people and for the people.
Through this document, citizens gain the power of the ballot box universal adult suffrage which allows them to elect leaders such as the President to govern in their name.
The Constitution was approved on 28 April 1992 with overwhelming support (92%) and came into force on 7 January 1993. It declares Ghana a unitary republic, with sovereignty residing in the people.
The Preamble begins with the words: “IN THE NAME OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD WE THE PEOPLE OF GHANA…”, a reminder that government exists to serve the people. Article 1 further emphasizes that sovereignty belongs to the people, and government powers must be exercised for their welfare within constitutional limits.
Article 125(1)(3) reinforces this principle: “Justice emanates from the people and shall be administered in the name of the Republic by the Judiciary which shall be independent and subject only to this Constitution.”
The 1992 Constitution reflects lessons from Ghana’s earlier constitutions of 1957, 1960, 1969, and 1979. Drawing inspiration from both British and American constitutional models, it was carefully designed to prevent coups, dictatorship, and one party rule. Its framework promotes tolerance, power sharing, and democratic governance.
It defines the fundamental political principles of the state, establishes the structure and duties of government, outlines the powers of the judiciary and legislature, and guarantees the fundamental rights and responsibilities of citizens.
The Preamble is especially significant. It explains the purpose of the Constitution and affirms that all governmental authority originates from the people. In essence, it is the spirit of the Constitution guiding interpretation and reminding both leaders and citizens of their shared responsibility to uphold democratic values.It provides as follows:
IN
EXERCISE of our natural and inalienable right to establish a framework of
government which shall secure for ourselves and posterity the blessings of
liberty, equality of opportunity and prosperity;
IN A SPIRIT
of friendship and peace with all peoples of the world;
AND IN SOLEMN
declaration and affirmation of our commitment to;
Freedom, Justice, Probity and Accountability;
The Principle that all powers of Government spring
from the Sovereign Will of the People;
The Principle of Universal Adult Suffrage;
The Rule of Law;
The protection and preservation of Fundamental Human
Rights and Freedoms, Unity and Stability for our Nation;
DO HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO
OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.
The Preamble of the 1992 Constitution is often described as the spirit of the document, setting out the ideals and values upon which the nation rests. Yet, beyond the preamble, some of the most critical provisions lie in Articles 1–3.
Article 1 establishes the supremacy of the Constitution. Any law inconsistent with it is deemed unconstitutional. It also affirms the sovereignty of the people.
Article 2 empowers citizens to challenge unconstitutional laws, acts, or omissions before the Supreme Court.
Article 3 imposes a duty on all citizens to defend the Constitution, resisting treason, coups, or attempts to overthrow it. It even directs citizens to do “all in their power” to restore the Constitution if it is suspended or abrogated.
This phrase “all in their power”raises an interesting jurisprudential debate. Could it be interpreted as sanctioning civil disobedience, or even violent resistance? If someone takes up arms to defend the Constitution, are they acting within its mandate? The wording leaves room for interpretation, and scholars often question whether it inadvertently legitimises violence in defense of constitutional order.
Article 17(1) declares that “All persons shall be equal before the law.” Yet, Article 57(2) introduces an exception: the President takes precedence over all other persons, followed by the Vice‑President, Speaker of Parliament, and Chief Justice.
This raises practical concerns. If the President were to commit a crime, does precedence shield him from accountability? In emergencies, does precedence mean the President’s safety is prioritised over women and children? The rationale may be that continuity of governance requires protecting the leadership hierarchy to prevent chaos but it undeniably complicates the principle of equality.
Article 19(2) provides that offences punishable by death or life imprisonment (except treason or high treason) must be tried by a judge and jury. The intent is to ensure that peers, not just judges, assess the factual basis of such serious charges. But this raises another question: Is the jury system truly efficient in Ghana? Concerns about training, impartiality, and consistency remain.
Constitutional Oaths
Finally, the Second Schedule of the Constitution sets out the various oaths, including the Oath of Allegiance, which binds officeholders to uphold the Constitution and serve the nation faithfully.
THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE
I,.........................................................................................................do
(in the name of the Almighty God swear) (solemnly affirm) that I will bear true
faith and allegiance to the Republic of Ghana as by law established; that I
will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of Ghana; and that I will preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana. (So help me God).
To be sworn
before the President, the Chief Justice or such other person as the President
may designate.
THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW.
On January 11, 2010, the President of Ghana, His Excellency Prof. John Evans Atta Mills, inaugurated a nine member Constitution Review Commission (CRC). The CRC was established under Constitutional Instrument (C.I.) 64 of 2010 as a Commission of Inquiry tasked with conducting a consultative review of the operation of the 1992 Constitution.
The Commission was designed to function as a quasi judicial body for a period of 12 months, extendable up to 18 months. It was chaired by Professor Albert Fiadjoe, an Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of the West Indies.
Among its key responsibilities were:
Reviewing the effectiveness of the 1992 Constitution.
Making recommendations to government for consideration.
The establishment of the CRC reflected commitment by the State to strengthening constitutional governance by ensuring that the supreme law of the land evolves to meet the needs of its people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment