The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Bagbin has restated his disagreement with President Akufo-Addo over the latter’s decision not to assent to bills passed by the House recently.
The bills include the Anti-witchcraft Bill and Criminal Offences Amendment Bill.
Although these bills were submitted to the President for assent, he declined to do so with an explanation, among others, that their passage breaches Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution. It also imposes financial obligations on the state, yet there were no fiscal impact assessment.
However, in disagreeing with President Akufo-Addo, the Speaker said the President’s interpretation of Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution is wrong.
“It does not amount to the imposition of a new charge on the consolidated fund or other public funds. The financial implications here are consequential and incidental rather than being the creation of new fiscal obligation. Therefore, interpreting these bills as falling within the ambit of fiscal implication as outlined in Article 108 a (ii), stretches the meaning of imposition of a charge beyond its intended scope.
Honourable members, it is imperative to underscore that, literal and narrow interpretation of fiscal bills will unduly constrict the legislative autonomy granted to Parliament. Such an approach, will not only be contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, but will also set a precedent that could hinder our ability to address the diverse needs of our nation through private members legislation. Honourable members, the bills under consideration, do not create new fiscal obligations. Therefore, should not be constrained by the provisions of Article 108,” Mr. Bagbin argued.
The Speaker also declared that President Akufo-Addo has no right to declare a bill passed by Parliament as unconstitutional.
He said the only arm of government that is clothed with such power is the Supreme Court.
The Speaker has therefore asked the President to do the needful, if he considers the passage of the Anti-witchcraft and Criminal Offences Amendment bills at variance with the provisions of the 1992.
“It is worth noting that the President nor Parliament, has no power to declare an Act unconstitutional. Out of the abundance of caution, I must note that Article 21 of the Constitution outlines that any allegation of any unconditionality must of necessity be grounded in a cause of action before the Supreme Court. The Constitution vests the power to declare an act unconstitutional solely in the Supreme Court.
This principle is central to the doctrine of Separation of Powers and the Rule of Law. If the president believes that Parliament acted ultra vires- beyond its constitutional powers in passing these bills, the constitutionally sanctioned cause of action would be to refer the matter to the Supreme Court. The President does not possess the authority to unilaterally declare parliamentary actions unconstitutional based on personal or executive assessments. Such a cause of action is not only within the contemplation of our laws, but breaches the established procedure for constitutional adjudication,” he contended.
With additional files from Duke Mensah Opoku