Supreme Court judges-designate vetted

Amendment motion to IPS bill defeated

 Accra (Greater Accra), 10 March 

Mr Justice Josiah Ofori-Boateng, a Supreme Court nominee, today said he does not see anything wrong with the  criminal libel law since it does not infringe any provision of the constitution and has not been repealed by any other law.

 "As far as I am concerned, any law which is not against the constitution can be tolerated by society. Any law against the constitution is no law".

 Mr Justice Ofori-Boateng, who had appeared before the Parliamentary Appointments Committee to be vetted on his nomination for the highest court of the land, was responding to a question on whether the independence of the press is not threatened by the presence of the criminal libel law on the statute books,

 Also before the Committee for public hearing for vetting  following his nomination as justice of the Supreme Court was Mr Justice John Debra Sarpong.

 The two nominees are currently judges of the Appeal Court. 

Before the question could be answered, however, Mr Kenneth Dzirasah, Chairman of the Committee, said he was disallowing the question, because Mr Justice Ofori-Boateng might give an answer which could pre-empt a judgement on a criminal libel case he might sit on at the Supreme Court.

 But some members of the Committee disagreed with Mr Dzirasah's objection.

 Mr Kwamena Bartels, NPP-Ablekuma North, said in his view, the question is legitimate since every judge may have a position on any issue and that Supreme Court judges are known to hold certain opinions on legal issues.

 While Mr Anthony Boadi-Mensah, NPP-Obuasi said if there was no such case before Mr Justice Ofori-Boateng, he found the query appropriate, Mr Abraham Ossei Aidooh, NPP-Tema West, said the question was innocuous.

 Following the opinions expressed by the members, Mr Dzirasah, who is also First Deputy Speaker, then requested Mr Justice Ofori-Boateng to respond to the question.

Accra (Greater Accra), 10 March 

Parliament today took the Institute of Professional Studies (IPS) Bill through the consideration stage, which saw the house  defeating a member's amendment motion that sought to make the institute analogous to an institute or a school of a university.

The bill seeks to re-enact the law governing IPS, S.M.C.D 200, 1978, in order to upgrade it to a tertiary level. 

A memorandum accompanying the bill said: "It has become necessary to re-enact the decree to clothe the institute with tertiary status and to replace the management board established by the decree with a governing body for a tertiary institution." 

Mr Albert Kan-Dapaah's amendment motion, sponsored by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, was defeated after a lengthy debate,during which members of the majority side opposed the amendment.

 The member called for a head count after the voice vote but changed his mind, when some members in committee meetings were called to the chamber by their whips to vote.

 His amendment motion read: "The institute shall have a status analogous to an institute or school of a university and, accordingly, enjoy academic, administrative and financial autonomy consistent with the overall policy of government relating to a subvented institute or school of a university". Moving the motion, Mr Kan-Dapaah noted that there are different types of tertiary institutions and that his motion seeks to clarify once and for all the status of IPS, since there are no official documents that clearly states the proper placing of the institute.

 He explained further that it has been proposed that as from next year, IPS would only admit people with first degrees, saying unless it is raised to its "rightful place", it will be difficult to attract the right calibre of lecturers to the institute. 

Dr Ibn Chambers, deputy minister of Education, said among other things that IPS has its own structure and not modelled after a traditional university.

 He added that its courses are more professionally oriented and the amendment would rather make the status of the institute ambiguous. 

Mr Akuamoah Ofosu-Boateng, minister of state, speaking  against the motion, said the amendment would put the institute under the university council, while the bill seeks to make the institute autonomous - with its own governing body.

 But Nana Akufo Addo, NPP-Abuakwa, disagreed with the member, saying the amendment makes the status crystal clear and is consistent with the objectives of the bill. Mr Kosi Kedem, NDC-Hohoe South, was of the view that the motion was unnecessary since the memorandum and the long title of the bill clearly states that the object of the bill is to change its status to a tertiary one.

 He said the bill rather gives the institute autonomy with a governing council, while the amendment rather lowers the status of IPS, because making it analogous will limit the powers of the council.

 Ms Christine Churcher, NPP-Cape Coast, said just calling it a tertiary institution does not solve the problem of status, since there are different types of tertiary institutions. 

She cited the case of London School of Economics, a higher educational institute in its own right, but which at the same time is analogous to the London University and degrees awarded are in fact London University degrees.

 "This is what is lacking in the bill; you do not know if it is a university or polytechnic. For the school to function better, attract the correct calibre of lecturers, it should be made analogous (to a university)", she said.

 Mr Jacob Arthur, NDC-Mfantsiman West who originally sought to move the motion but later withdrew it, said it is possible that the institute will become higher than a school of a university, with lecturers earning more than those in the universities, so the amendment motion was not necessary.

 When the question was put, the amendment was not carried. 

The house approved the rest of the amendments, and the bill  now awaits its third reading and presidential assent to make it law.