Kofi Bentil, Vice President of IMANI Africa, has asserted the fundamental principle that no individual or institution in Ghana is above the law, emphasizing the Supreme Court’s exclusive authority to interpret the Constitution. His remarks emerge from the backdrop of a contentious situation regarding a recent Supreme Court ruling that temporarily halted the Speaker of Parliament’s decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant—a ruling that has been met with resistance from the National Democratic Congress (NDC) caucus, which has publicly stated its intention to disregard it. Bentil expressed his views in a Facebook post dated October 21, highlighting the critical importance of the Constitution’s supremacy and the key roles played by the Supreme Court.
In his post, Bentil discussed the nature of legal authority in Ghana, insisting that all individuals and institutions derive their powers from the Constitution. He posed a series of rhetorical questions to outline the proper contexts in which the Supreme Court’s authority stands. He stated unequivocally that “no one and no institution is above the law,” reinforcing the notion that the Constitution is the ultimate law governing the land. His argument centers on the idea that the discernment of legal compliance rests solely with the Supreme Court, the only institution empowered to interpret constitutional mandates.
The Vice President’s assertion of the Supreme Court’s paramount role underscores a belief that compliance with its rulings is mandatory for all, including parliamentary personnel and the Speaker himself. Bentil articulated that the Supreme Court’s interpretations render a binding authority that governs all actions taken by Parliament. He framed this as a holistic principle that asserts the supremacy of the Constitution, implying that even legislative initiatives must align with constitutional provisions as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Bentil’s stance is particularly salient in the context of the current political discord, as the NDC caucus appears to be challenging the Supreme Court’s authority by declaring its intent to ignore its ruling. This situation raises questions not just about parliamentary procedures but also about the broader implications for Ghanaian democracy and rule of law. By denying compliance with the Supreme Court’s determination, the NDC and its supporters risk undermining the judicial authority that Bentil argues is critical to the nation’s governance.
The implications of Bentil’s viewpoint suggest a need for a reinvigorated respect for legal institutions and processes in Ghana. He encourages a collective acknowledgment of the foundational role the Supreme Court plays in defining rule of law and ensuring check and balances among branches of government. This respect for judicial authority is positioned as essential for maintaining the integrity of the governance framework and the Constitution itself. As these legal debates unfold, Bentil’s commentary serves as a reminder of the potential consequences of politicizing judicial decisions, which may threaten the stability of constitutional governance.
In conclusion, Bentil’s remarks reinforce the idea that the supremacy of the Constitution is a cornerstone of legal and political order in Ghana. His emphasis on the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret constitutional provisions is intended to underpin a standard that all entities, including Parliament, must follow. As Ghana navigates these contentious legal waters, the broader societal obligation to uphold the rule of law as dictated by its highest judicial authority remains paramount in ensuring a balanced and functioning democratic system.
