Don’t appoint ministers from Parliament­: CRC recommends - Suggests capping of ministers, Supreme Court Justices, MPs

The Constitution Review Committee (CRC) has recommended amendments to Article 78(1) of the 1992 Constitution to bar Members of Parliament (MPs) from being appointed as ministers of state, deputy ministers or regional ministers.

The committee also recommended the capping of Justices of the Supreme Court to 15, including the Chief Justice.

Again, it recommended the capping of ministerial appointment not to exceed 57 as well as MPs at the current 276 members.

The committee also suggested that an MP who resigns from Parliament should not be eligible for appointment as a minister of state, deputy minister or regional minister for the remainder of the Parliament's term.

These recommendations are part of the committee's report presented to President John Dramani Mahama last Monday. 

Similarities

The proposed changes  in the appoinment of ministers are similar to those in the US Constitution, which prevent a sitting member of Congress or the Senate from being appointed to an executive branch position.

Cap on Ministers / Cap on Supreme Court Justices

The CRC, led by Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh, also recommended amendments to Article 78(2) to limit the total number of ministers of state, including deputy ministers and regional ministers, to three times the number of ministers in the Cabinet.

Currently, the number of ministers of state in the Cabinet is capped at 19, meaning the total number of ministers of state, including deputy ministers and regional ministers, should not exceed 57.

The committee further recommended that the President should not appoint deputy regional ministers and should furnish Parliament with written reasons for appointing a minister of state in excess of the stated ceiling, subject to Parliament's approval by a simple majority.

On the capping of the Justices of the Supreme Court to 15, including the Chief Justice, the committee explained that the presumption of an upper limit would preserve appointment flexibility, while safeguarding against excessive expansion of the Court.

The current constitutional provision on the composition of Justices of the Supreme Court does not place any limit on the number of Justices that can serve on the apex court. 

Context

Article 128(1) of the 1992 Constitution provides for not less than nine judges, other than the Chief Justice, on the SC, but places no limit on the number the court should have.
But in the recent history of the court, it has had a maximum of 19 justices.

Additionally, Article 131(1)(a) of the Constitution makes it binding on the SC to hear matters, whether civil or criminal, emanating from the High Court to be heard on second appeal as of right.

Many legal luminaries have, over the past years, espoused contrasting views on the capping of the number of justices at the SC.

In 2019, former Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo, who was then being vetted for the SC, said it would be disastrous to cap the number of judges at the SC, since the Constitution had given the apex court a broad scope and there was a need to put as many judges as possible there to do the work.

Two other former Chief Justices, Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah and his predecessor, Sophia Akuffo, also kicked against calls to cap the number of judges at the Supreme Court. 

Other recommendations

Aside from placing a cap on the number, the CRC also recommended that appeals of cases from the lower courts should terminate at the Court of Appeal, without an automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court, unless by leave.

This reform, the committee said, would reduce the apex court's caseload, enhance the timeliness of its decisions, and allow it to focus on matters of substantial constitutional and national importance.

The CRC, however, recommended that there should be no numerical cap imposed on the Court of Appeal and the High Court. 

Election petitions

The committee also recommended that Presidential election petitions should be heard and determined by the Supreme Court within 30 days after they are brought.

“In the interest of expeditious determination of the petition, the Electoral Commission shall furnish promptly for the scrutiny of the Supreme Court, the Petitioner and any other party in the case, all relevant or contested data in its custody pertaining to the results of the election,” the committee recommended.

Per the recommendation, the petition to challenge the validity of the election of a person declared as President-elect shall be brought by a citizen of Ghana to the Supreme Court within 14 calendar days after the declaration of the results of the election.

Size of Parliament

The committee further recommended that the size of Parliament be capped at its current level as part of reforms aimed at reducing the cost of governance and strengthening representative democracy.

The Committee explained that the continuous expansion of Parliament over the years had placed a growing financial burden on the state without a corresponding improvement in legislative efficiency or representation.

“The Committee recommends that the size of Parliament should be capped at the current number to prevent further expansion and the associated fiscal strain on the public purse,” the report stated.

It explained that Ghana’s population growth and the creation of new constituencies had often been used to justify an increase in the number of Members of Parliament (MPs), but said that such expansions had significant implications for public expenditure, including salaries, allowances, infrastructure and administrative costs.

Reforms

In addition to capping the size of Parliament, the Committee proposed reforms to improve inclusion and accountability within the legislative arm of government.

Among the recommendations is a call for the country to study and consider introducing a proportional representation system to complement the existing constituency-based model.

“The Committee is of the view that proportional representation has the potential to improve inclusiveness, particularly for women, persons with disabilities, minorities and smaller political groupings,” the report said.

The CRC further called for stronger internal independence of Parliament from excessive party control, stressing that lawmakers should be empowered to exercise oversight and legislative functions without undue partisan pressure.

“Parliament must be enabled to operate as an independent arm of government, capable of holding the Executive to account in the national interest,” the report said.