John Dramani Mahama
It’s often said that when you are looking for a place to hide anything from Africans and there’s a book, look no further. Put it inside the book, and the African would never find it.
Now, this is the most wicked satirical comment that can be attributed to Africans. But exactly what Kenneth Kwabena Agyei Kuranchie has done in filing one of the most mischievous and contemptuous cases to the Supreme Court of Ghana seeking to disqualify the nation’s elixir of hope, former President Mahama, from rescuing the nation from the unfolding economic disaster.
He knew nobody would want to open the Constitution. How gullible can Ghanaians be?
Fellow Ghanaians, on the disqualification of presidential candidates, the last time I checked as a student of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, nowhere did the sacrosanct document mention or state that if someone hates a presidential candidate of a certain political party, he or she can put together a complete gibberish to the apex court of the land in order to disqualify them.
Neither Article 62(2), 68 (2–9), nor 66 (3) debar a former president from contesting for the presidency. Kenneth was simply engaging in legal sakawa and fraud!
What amazed me the most is the failure of Kenneth to invoke Article 69 of the Constitution, which underscores the removal of the president in times of economic mess like this. Why couldn’t Kenneth look beyond Article 68 and find below Article 69 Clause 1 (b), which states: “to have conducted himself (the president) in a manner:
Which brings or is likely to bring the high office of president into disrepute, ridicule or contempt;
or
Prejudicial or inimical to the economy or security of the state.”
Was Kenneth living under a rock when President Akufo-Addo plagiarised the speech that brought the Office of the President into disrepute? What about the economic Armageddon we are facing? Is that not ridiculous, contemptuous, inimical enough to have triggered a suit against the president to vacate the
presidency with immediate effect? Hmm.
But you see, the case filed by Kenneth Kwabena Agyei Kuranchie against former President John Dramani Mahama, and by the grace of God, an incoming president come January 7, 2025, is nothing but a classic case of 'ex facie curiae', a contempt of the Supreme Court outside the courtroom, and he must be penalized to deter other legal morons and charlatans of his kind in the nearest future.
Say what you like, clearly, as we draw closer to the 2024 general elections, the desperation, frustration translated into envy, hatred, and outright enmity by the governing New Patriotic Party, NPP, towards the admirable former Gentleman of the Republic of Ghana, H.E. former President Mahama, keeps manifesting in many forms and sizes.
And the latest lunacy laced with envy is what anybody can best describe as a miscarriage of legal knowledge on the part of the said Kenneth Kwabena Agyei Kuranchie, who is basically interpreting the Constitution of Ghana on behalf of the Judiciary and dictating that to the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court.
He seeks to disqualify the indefatigable flag-bearer of the National Democratic Congress, because he hates to see Mahama at the helm of the affairs of Ghana again. In hindsight, what Kuranchie has done is a plain contempt of the Supreme Court. And Article 126 has endowed the Superior Court with the power to let citizens face the full weight and vindictive rigors of the law if any citizen decides to usurp the judiciary role of the highest adjudicatory body in Ghana.
While this is a clear mark of infantilism in the law, I think hatred, envy, and enmity for the former president have blinded the plaintiff into committing this legal suicide. The case was uncooked on arrival. Not well thought through.
Apparently, the fundamental argument the plaintiff, Kuranchie, is making, and seeking to have former President Mahama disqualified for contesting the 2024 presidential election by the supreme court, bothers with what is known in legal gymnastics as 'stare decisis' in Latin, which is translated as 'stand by things decided"—a judicial precedence basically.
I don't know whether Kuranchie is a law practitioner or a student; either way, he is pretty bad at it. Aside from the fact that the legal Lilliputian has committed serious contempt of the Supreme Court for interpreting the Constitution for it to grant him his desired verdict, Kuranchie doesn't know that the fact that there's no legal precedent yet about something, even if it exists in the constitution, doesn’t warrant the disqualification of that thing and pronounce it null and void.
The 1992 Constitution states, in Article 66, that presidents shall have a term of four years. Clause 2 of the same Article (66) specifically stipulates that no president shall exceed two terms in office.
However, because the constitution refers to presidents or individuals occupying the seat of the presidency, Kuranchie decides to disqualify a former president whose terms of office have not yet elapsed. Meanwhile, nowhere in the Constitution does it state that former presidents with expired terms of office are the same as those former presidents who still have valid terms of office.
Does the Constitution say that?
As a result, Kenneth Kwabena Agyei assumes that because Ghana has never witnessed a former president with a valid term of office to enable him or her to seek to be president again, if there's a former president who still has more terms of office, he must be treated like those former presidents whose terms of office have expired per Article 66 (2).
That is, in Ghana, there's no precedent for a former president to rely on Article 66, Clause 2, to contest. Therefore, John Dramani Mahama should be disqualified, according to Kenneth. What a tragic-comical and most useless case ever filed, accentuated by frustration! Kuranchie must be sick in the head.
In fact, in the specific Article that deals with the qualifications of presidents (Article 62), nowhere does it mention or state that a person shall not qualify to contest for the presidency if he or she is a former president.
Indeed, Article 62 has a correlation with Article 94, which is also specific about the qualifications of Members of Parliament (MP). The correlation between them is borne out of the fact that, for a person to qualify as president, he or she should be qualified to be an MP. Again, the constitution has been silent whether
a former president can become an MP or not. But does it mean it’s not possible if Akufo Addo wants to serve Abuakwa South again after vacating the presidency in January 2025?
Perhaps, the correlation between Articles 68 and 98 would expose the suit against former President Mahama by Kenneth Kwabena Agyei as ill-prepared and mischievous. I don't know which legal hole Kenneth crawled out of with this complete balderdash, but what is obvious is that he must have not made good use of the departments of the law profession before presenting this useless piece to the apex court. And I foresee the Supreme Court throwing such nonsense out with penalties for contempt.
Kenneth must also read the Constitution thoroughly before committing a legal blunder of such proportion next time. If attention is paid closely to Articles 98 and 68, both articles make reference to Article 71 on the issue of the determination of certain emoluments. Just as we saw Articles 62 and 94 on the eligibility requirements for president and MP, respectively. And Clauses 2 of each (98 and 68) forbid MPs and presidents from holding certain offices unless approved by Parliament in the case of a former president and the Speaker in the case of an MP.
However, a Member of Parliament who wishes to contest for the presidency does so after seizing the position of MP and is still entitled to his emoluments. And he must become the flagbearer of a political party first. Why then can't a former president still occupy an office other than for the state, especially if he is a former president with an unexpired term of office?
Kenneth interestingly argued and declared that former President Mahama be disqualified because of Article 68 (2 through 9). For him, the fact that 68 (2) wants former presidents to hold no office in any establishment except the state and a flag bearer of a political party is of self-serving and profiteering, therefore, the former President be disqualified. But, Article 55 (3) of the Constitution states that "Subject to the provisions of this article, a political party is free to participate in shaping the political will of the people (public), to disseminate information on political ideas, social and economic programmes of a national character (the State)"
The national character here refers to the State. This means that a former president who has not elapsed his terms of office and acting in the capacity of a Flagbearer of a political party is occupying an office of the State since opposition political parties are key in the function of the State, democracy, and in national discourse.
Be that as it may, if we choose to follow the logic of Kenneth, that because Article 62 (2) requires a former president not to occupy an office other than the State's, it's clear that no where does the Constitution specify that a former president who still hasn't elapsed his terms of office is part of former
presidents who have elapsed their terms of office per Clause 2 of Article 62.
Therefore, for avoidance of any doubt, the Constitution which grants two terms of office in one breath in Article 66 (2) to individuals seeking to be president, cannot take away the rights of former presidents with unfinished terms of office to occupy offices other than for the State. Especially, offices in the political discourse of the country.
Therefore, President Mahama is not bound by the same law, which binds on presidents who have expired or finished terms of office, to seek parliamentary approval to occupying offices other than the State's as a half-finished former president. Let alone disqualifying him.
Hence, it cannot be proper interpretation of Article 62 (2 through 9) to disqualify Mahama of being eligible to serve as a flagbearer of main opposition party - alternative government as Kenneth prematurely concluded.
With the above arguments, I believe the Supreme court would throw out this uncalculated case and declare it of no legal effect. Both the letter and spirit of the Constitution is very sound on this matter. Mahama is a former president with unfinished terms of office and he must not be treated by the Constitution as former presidents with expired terms of office.