A Private legal practitioner Justice Srem-Sai has said in reaction to the refusal of the President to assent to the three bills presented to his office that the President’s veto power is exercisable only where he seeks a change or an amendment to any specific provisions of the bill.
This means that the President’s reason for vetoing a bill is limited to the content of the bill, he said.
He added that if the President has any other concerns over a bill, he would have to use other established mechanisms for enforcing the Constitution.
“The veto power, as I said, is not a blank cheque for him to use to settle political or personal scores.
“In this case, however, the President is not seeking to change or amend any provision of the bill. His only reason for exercising the veto power is that the bill came from an MP Hon. Francis Sosu, and not from him (President Akufo Addo),” he wrote on his X platform.
The bills are; Criminal Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2023, Criminal Offences (Amendment) (No.2) Bill, 2023, and Armed Forces (Amendment) Bill, 2023.
Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin indicated that the President’s decision not to sign the three private member’s bills demonstrated his misunderstanding of the constitutional processes in the country.
“Absence of a judicial determination from the Supreme Court, the President’s unilateral assessment of unconstitutionality does not hold legal water. It is a departure from the established legal procedure, norms, and practices that govern our constitutional democracy.
“The appropriate lawful response if there were genuine concerns about the constitutionality of the legislative action of this house would have been to seek judicial review from the Supreme Court.”
Madina lawmaker Francis Xavier Sosu who sponsored the bills also accused President Akufo-Addo of acting unconstitutionally for not signing the three bills.
“I think the president is acting unconstitutionally and it is the role of the speaker to tell the president in his face that he is acting unconstitutionally.
“Since the bill got passed in July this year we have over five people who have already been killed again on account of witcraft accusations,” he told TV3 an in interview.
But their views were challenged by the Executive Director of the Ghana Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), Professor H Kwasi Prempeh who indicated that the President cannot be compelled judicially to sign a bill into law, although certain bills can become law by operation of law.
Prof Prempeh who is also a private legal practitioner said in a Facebook post that “Our Imperial Speaker. No, the President need not seek the opinion of the Supreme Court first before deciding to veto a bill on constitutional grounds. If the President independently believes that Parliament exceeded its constitutional authority in passing a particular bill as a Private Member’s bill, the President can stand on that ground to veto the bill.
“If the Speaker is free to authorize Parliament to proceed on a private member’s bill because he believes the bill does not infringe Article 108, so is the President free to veto such a bill passed by Parliament if he believes it to infringe Article 108.
“And, if he does so, not even a Supreme Court determination to the contrary can override or set aside the President’s veto. Parliament is, however, free to consider the bill again, and only if it is able to pass the same bill again by at least a two-thirds majority, will the President’s veto have been defeated. In short, the only check against the President’s use of his veto power is a political one, in the form of a legislative override by a supermajority; it is not a judicial one.
“The President cannot be compelled judicially to sign a bill into law, although certain bills can become law by operation of law (i.e., automatically, with or without the president’s assent). Any misunderstanding here is on the part of the Speaker.”
President Akufo-Addo while notifying Parliament of his inability to assent to the Criminal Offences Amendment Bill 2022, raised constitutional matters regarding the Bills.
In the letter he wrote to Parliament “I am writing to you in reference to our meeting held on the 28th of November, 2023 at my office where we discussed the outstanding bills presented for assent namely; the Criminal Offenses Amendment Bill 2023, Criminal Offences Amendment number 2 Bill 2023, and the Armed Forces Amendment Bill 2023.
“During our conversation, I raised specific constitutional concerns regarding these bills related to Article 108 of the Constitution, particularly the nature of these bills which were introduced into Parliament as private members’ bills rather than being presented by me or on my behalf….”
“As I indicated the content of these bills have my support, but we need to ensure that they are enacted in line with established constitutional and legislative process. After thorough consideration and in light of the constitutional issue I pointed out during our meeting, I am unable to assent to these bills.
“The concerns raised are significant and have profound implications for the constitutional integrity of these legislative actions. Any legislation we pass must be in complete alignment with the provisions of our Constitution. I intend to have these bills reintroduced in Parliament on my behalf in due course,” he added.
Regarding the Ghana Armed Forces Amendment Bill, President Akufo-Addo, in the letter indicated his inability to sign after citing financial implications on the state’s Consolidated Fund and potential breaches of Article 108 of the Constitution as reasons for his refusal.
Adding his voice to this issue, Justice Srem-Sai wrote that “A law passed by Parliament (a bill) is not a full law (an Act) until the President signs it. This means that the President has the power to sign or to refuse to sign a bill. When he signs, we say he has given his assent; when refuses, he has vetoed it. In August and in November this year, Parliament passed and presented some bills to the President to sign into Acts. Now, the President is claiming that he has vetoed the bills. The question is – is the President’s purported veto valid?
“The beginning point of the answer to this question is that the President’s veto power is not a blank cheque – he can’t do as he wishes or behave as he pleases with the power. For his veto to be valid, he must act in accordance with the Constitution.
“We know a few things: we know, for instance, that the President, in the exercise of the veto power, is limited (restricted) in at least 2 clear ways. He is limited in respect of TIME. He’s also limited in respect of the GROUNDS on which he may veto a bill.
TIME: Generally, he has up to 21 days (from the day the Speaker of Parliament presents the bill to him) to exercise the veto power. First, he has 7 days to “signify” to the Speaker that he has vetoed the bill; then, an additional 14 days to provide the grounds for the veto.
“If the President defaults in satisfying any of these timelines – the 7 days, or the 14 days – the veto becomes invalid. In such a situation, he may be deemed to have assented to the bill notwithstanding that he has not actually signed it. On the facts, one of the bills in question was presented to the President in August. The other 2 were presented to him in November. No one heard from him in respect of the memorandum until December 12. Now, do the maths. That’s not all.
“REASON: The President’s veto power is exercisable only where he seeks a change or an amendment to ”any SPECIFIC provisions of the bill”. This means that the President’s reasons for vetoing a bill is limited to the content of the bill.
“If the President has any other concerns over a bill, he (like any other citizen), would have to use other established mechanisms for enforcing the Constitution. The veto power, as I said, is not a blank cheque for him to use to settle political or personal scores. In this case, however, the President is not seeking to change or amend any provision of the bill. His only reason for exercising the veto power is that the bill came from an MP (Hon. Francis Sosu) and not from him (President Akufo Addo).”