Prof Ransford Gyampo
The second swearing in of the Speaker of Parliament to act as President within a fortnight has suffered a criticism by an Associate Professor of the University of Ghana, Legon.
Associate Professor, Ransford Gyampo, a political scientist who is the Director of the Centre For European Studies of the university who spoke to the DAILY GUIDE when the Speaker went through the drill of another swearing in function following the departure of the President for an African Union activity said, adhering to the constitution the way we are doing when the President travels and when the vice president is also not at home ‘imposes unnecessary procedural absurdity, if it ( the constitution) was really made for us.’
‘Who swears the Speaker out when the President returns from his trips? The President doesn’t swear an oath of office again when he returns to the country from his official visits abroad.’
A President who returns to the country after his trip outside, he pointed out, ‘automatically assumes his role as President without fun fair and swearing in again.’
“We have a new situation at hand that in my view, should necessitate an interpretation of our constitution for the Speaker to automatically take over when the President and Veep aren’t around,” he demanded.
He was quick to recall, however, that the Supreme Court on two occasions or so ruled in favor of the status quo. ‘But I am sure the possibility of a long absence of a Veep and frequent traveling itinerary of a President now presents a new case for a review of the position of our eminent law lords,’ he said.
For him ‘simple notification to Parliament and the Speaker about the absence of the President and the Veep, should be enough to make the Speaker act as President. This could be a convention worth evolving.’
Democracy, according to him, ‘cannot thrive on formal-legal rules alone. Properly evolved and well accepted conventions are also crucial in strengthening the pillars of any democracy.’
‘If it becomes necessary for the President to travel every three days while the Veep is away, would we summon Parliament every three days to swear in the Speaker as President?’ Prof Gyampo asked rhetorically.
The formal transfer of EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY of the land cannot be handled like a “ping-pong table tennis game” that goes there and comes here just like that, he said, adding ‘the frequency of swearing-ins would reduce the solemnity and reverence that must surround the transfer and exercise of executive authority of the land.’
‘Ruling regimes shouldn’t be too happy to have their appointed Speakers sworn in as Presidents. For, a day would surely come when the opposition would dominate parliament. A day would surely come when the Speaker may come from the opposition as happens elsewhere. This opposition Speaker would surely have the powers to reshuffle ministers and overturn decisions taken by the substantive President,’ he cautioned.
In contemporary times of technology, he asked whether physical presence in a country seriously matters?
The sitting president, he said, would still run the country even if he isn’t in the country pointing out that no serious decision can be taken without contacting where he may be. ‘So why are we playing “table tennis” with our Executive powers?’
The Supreme Court, the Prof said, might have to be contacted for their position on this issue in view of, as he put it, ‘the new situation on our hand.’
By A.R. Gomda