Accra (Greater Accra), 16 March 2000
Dr Obed Asamoah, Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, on Wednesday, withdrew the Vice-President (Succession) Bill, 1999, from Parliament, explaining that the draft legislative proposal has raised a number of constitutional issues, which need further discussions.
The Minister had been scheduled to move a motion for a second reading of the bill, which sought to provide for the appointment of the Vice-President in certain cases.
A memorandum accompanying the bill said the Constitution is silent on the issue of the appointment to the Office of Vice-President where the incumbent dies, resigns or is removed from office.
The memo said the Constitution also does not stipulate what should happen when the Vice-President joins a party in opposition to that of the President.
It said the bill, sought to fill loopholes using residual powers of Parliament in Article 298 of the Constitution, which mandates the legislature to provide for matters to be dealt with where there is no provision express or by necessary implication in the Constitution to deal with an issue.
Dr Asamoah told Parliament that a report from the House Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs on the bill, raised a number of fundamental and constitutional issues, which need to be considered.
He explained that if his motion was allowed to proceed, Parliament would be bogged down by legal arguments for months and said he was, therefore, withdrawing the bill for further discussions on it to allow the Ministry to come out with proposals that would be acceptable to the House.
Mr. Justice Daniel Francis Annan, the Speaker, said the Minister's decision to withdraw the bill was in the right direction and proposed that it should be withdrawn.
On a point of order, Mr Hackman Owusu-Agyemang, Minority Spokesman on Foreign Affairs said the Minister should have sought permission from Parliament before the bill could be withdrawn.
The Speaker, however, intervened and told Mr Owusu-Agyemang that he had earlier indicated to the House the Minister's decision to withdraw the bill and the members had agreed to the withdrawal by acclamation.
The report said two main issues raised for consideration of Parliament are whether or not there is a loophole or omission in the Constitution in respect of succession to the Office of Vice-President or removal of a Vice-President and whether or not the bill is an amendment to the Constitution.
The Committee said representations were forcefully submitted to it that there is no loophole or omission in the Constitution on the succession to the Office of the Vice-President, if the incumbent dies, resigns, is removed or joins a party in opposition to that of the President.
The report said majority of members of the Committee accepted the view that Articles 60 and 69 of the Constitution, adequately provide for both instances.
On whether or not the bill is an amendment to the Constitution, the Committee noted that the legislative proposal is simply calling on Parliament to exercise its residual powers under Article 298 of the Constitution.
The Article reads: " subject to the provisions of Chapter 25 of the Constitution, where on any matter whether arising out of the Constitution or otherwise, there is no provision expressed or by necessary implication of the Constitution, which deals with the matter, Parliament shall by an Act of Parliament not inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution, provide for that matter to be dealt with".
Chapter 25 states in part that "subject to the provisions of the Constitution, Parliament may, by an Act of Parliament, amend any provision of the Constitution."
It states further that, "the Constitution shall not be amended by an Act of Parliament or altered whether directly or indirectly, unless the sole purpose of the Act is to amend the Constitution and the Act has been passed in accordance with this Chapter".
The Committee explained that in the case of the initiators of the bill, Parliament is only being called upon to provide for these matters by an Act and not to amend any provision of the Constitution, and there is, therefore, no need to follow the provisions of Chapter 25 of the Constitution.
The report said there was however, a very strong and prevalent contrary view to the effect that the proposed bill is seeking to amend the Constitution.
The contention was that the bill before the House is seeking "to add" to the Constitution, an action, which amounts to amending the Constitution, and therefore, the procedure as outlined in Chapter 25 of the Constitution should be followed.
The Committee said after critically examining the various arguments, it concluded that the bill is seeking to amend the Constitution and it follows without saying therefore that since the residual powers of Parliament under Article 298 are subject to Chapter 25 of the Constitution, it means that the procedure outlined in Chapter 25 is applicable.
"Since this procedure has not been followed, the Committee submits that the bill is not properly before the House and should not be passed into law", the report said.
GRi