CHRAJ advocates Democracy Fund for independent constitutional bodies
The Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (GHRAJ) is advocating a Democracy Fund, similar to what was proposed by the Constitution Review Commission (CRC) for independent constitutional bodies.
Advertisement
That, according to it, would enhance the concept of the authority for independent constitutional institutions such as CHRAJ, the Electoral Commission (EC), the National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE) and the National Media Commission (NMC) envisaged by the Constitution and also contribute to the improvement of the gains made in democratisation.
A Deputy Commissioner of CHRA, Mr Joseph Whittal, in an interview with the Daily Graphic, said such a fund would ensure the realisation of the constitutional prescription that the “administrative expenses of independent constitutional bodies be charged to the Consolidated Fund”.
Speedy resolution
He explained that the case of Brown v the Attorney General, as decided by the Supreme Court, had defined the constitutional mandate of charging the administrative expenses of constitutional bodies to the Consolidated Fund.
It meant that before any disbursement was made from the Consolidated Fund, funding for the constitutional bodies was the first to be satisfied, after the payment of government debts, he said.
Mr Whittal said the case had been cited with approval in the recommendations of the CRC, based on which an independent constitutional bodies’ fund had been proposed, with the government’s White Paper on the report accepting that proposal.
He said it was unfortunate that some of the recommendations had been stalled because of the pending suit on the process in which the review of the Constitution was undertaken.
He was of the view that civil society organisations in the country had to quickly lobby for the fast adjudication of the case at the Supreme Court to finalise the administrative, legislative and judicial actions needed for the reforms.
Other Trending Stories
Reforms needed
The Head of Research and Programmes at the Centre for Democratic Development (CDD), Dr Franklin Oduro, agreed that civil society organisations had to lobby for the resolution of the issue by publicly raising issues.
He said governance reforms and other related issues in the CRC report and picked up for implementation by the Constitution Review Implementation Committee (CRIC) kept popping up in discussions at various platforms on governance reforms.
Dr Oduro, who is also the Deputy Director of the CDD, said it had been the hope of many civil society organisations for some reforms to have taken effect before the next elections.
However, many of the needed governance reforms had stalled and all had continued to operate in the weaknesses of the governance system, he said.
Background
In July 2014, a US-based Ghanaian professor, Stephen Kwaku Asare, filed a suit at the Supreme Court seeking to nullify the implementation of a constitutional review concluded in 2012 by the CRIC that was inaugurated in October that year.
The committee, chaired by Prof. Emmanuel Victor Dankwah, was set up by the government to make proposals and recommendations for the review of the Constitution.
The recommendations and proposals were to be subjected to a vote in a referendum.
But Prof. Asare was of the view that the CRIC had no power under the laws of Ghana to schedule a referendum and/or amend the Constitution of Ghana.
He said Parliament was the sole body to initiate, consider and propose amendments to the Constitution.
In his suit, he asked the Supreme Court to direct the President, the chairman and members of the CRC, the chairman and members of the CRIC, the Attorney General, their deputies, agents or employees or any other servant or agent of the Republic to permanently cease and desist from taking any actions that seek to amend or otherwise disturb the Constitution in so far as such actions are inconsistent with Chapter 25 of the Constitution.
Writer’s email: caroline.boateng@graphic.com.gh