|
Matters
arising, Article 71 and the Chinery-Hesse
Commission’s Report
E. Ablorh-Odjidja,
Ghanadot
January 13, 2011
A constitutional
issue was raised when a member of Parliament
(MP) for Atwima Mponua, Mr. Isaac Asiamah,
described as “unconstitutional the current
salaries being paid public office holders
listed under Article 71 of the 1992
Constitution,” as reported on December 29,
2010, by a Daily Graphic online article.
Mr. Asiamah
questioned the constitutional basis for the
payments since “President Mills had rejected
the recommendations made by the
Chinery-Hesse Committee,” the report said.
A new committee was
sworn in by President Mills on June 8, 2010,
to determine new salaries for Article 71
officeholders, including speakers and
members of parliament. The committee has yet
to complete its work.
It must be recalled
that in October 2004, President Kufuor in
the discharge of his constitutional duties
(Article 71 of the 1992 Constitution)
established the Chinery-Hesse Committee “to
review, determine and make recommendations
on the Emoluments for Article 71
Constitutional Office Holders as described
in Article 71 of the 1992 Constitution.”
The Committee worked
on two reports. One covering emoluments of
all categories of workers under Article 71,
including Members of Parliament and former
President Rawlings, was completed in 2005
and implemented for all beneficiaries.
The second report,
the executive summary, which was completed
in June 2008, was made available to the
appropriate parliamentary committee. The
full report reached the then President (Kufuor)
in December 2008.
Under Article 71, a
report of such recommendations is subject to
acceptance and approval by a sitting
president and Parliament. It was before
President Kufuor left office in January
2009.
As said, this report
has been rejected by his successor.
If the illegality
implied by Mr. Asiamah’s statement holds,
then it does so because President Mills has
removed, and therefore annulled without a
replacement, the basis for the payments of
officials as required under Article 71 of
the constitution.
What has yet to be
learned is not only whether the continuing
payment of these salaries is illegal but
also whether President Mills has the
constitutional authority to render void what
his predecessor (Kufuor) has already
accepted and Parliament previously approved.
There may be another
constitutional conundrum requiring
explanation: the separation of the functions
required by Article 71 and the apparent
conflict that President Mill’s act has
raised between the executive and the
legislative branches of government.
A constitutional
lawyer consulted had this to say: “One thing
that is clear … under article 71(1), it is
the President who determines the salaries of
Parliament. Under article 71(2) it is
Parliament which determines the salaries”
for the president.
The lawyer also made
clear that “in both cases, it is NOT the
committee which determines them.” Once the
recommendations were made, the Chinery-Hesse
committee, having completed its work, got
out of the way for the constitution to work.
The separation
studiously planted in the constitution,
between the presidency and parliament on the
matter of Article 71(1) and (2), is worthy
of serious consideration. We are skating on
thin ice when only one branch of government
starts stomping on the common pond.
But the conflict has
been raised and it requires a resolution
free of partisan concerns because the
national interest is at stake.
On record to aid
reflection is our constitutional history.
The constitution has
been abused in the past by the desires of
military dictators, mostly for reasons of
power lust, and wealth. We must now demand a
safe and reasonable course for our
commonwealth. A fair, reasonable, rewarding
Emolument Package, not a cheapskate one,
ought to stem future destructive behaviors
of those officials described under article
71 of the constitution.
On the matter of the
worthiness of the Chinery-Hesse report, it
is the constitution that required the
appointment of the five-member committee,
with the rationale that the process be put
beyond partisan bickering.
This committee, now
defunct, consisted of some of our most
eminent citizens: Mrs. Chinery-Hesse, a Gusi
Peace Prize (Asian Nobel) laureate and
renowned international public servant, and
other men and women of high esteem and
stellar reputations in their fields, all of
whom could easily have qualified to serve in
any of our administrations of the past and
present.
Unfortunately, the
reputation of this committee has been seized
by the very political process the
constitution designed it to be free of.
As a result of the politics, their
collective integrity is being questioned by
the raucous reception of the report.
Imagine then what
will happen to us as a nation of honorable
people when the next report of the new
committee, also of stellar men and women,
falls foul of some political interest?
The Chinery-Hesse
report sought to improve the emolument and
retirement package for our public officials
on a basis that should induce fealty, better
performance of duty for the nation.
In turn, it is intended to induce
from the public the acceptance, and
preservation of the dignity of individuals
who serve this nation.
Among the guiding
principles for the committee was “What price
are we prepared to pay for good governance?”
For the average
citizen, it is then to consider is the
proposition of the cost he or she is
prepared to pay for the ills we suffer for
the lack of good governance.
The absence of the same principles in
our public officials brings about
ineffectual institutions, civil wars, and
coup d’états.
And more important
for consideration is the matter of those
leaders who would refuse “to relinquish
power and to adhere to Presidential Term
Limits” and good governance.
If we don’t
understand the Chinery-Hesse Report for the
stability it seeks, other nations do.
A Ghana News Agency
article (January 13, 2011), citing a
statement from Ghana’s Ministry of Finance,
said; “The European Union agreed to give
Ghana 26 million Euros ($34.6 million) to
help finance the West African nation’s 2012
national elections.”
Should Ghana refuse
the offer because it is huge; after all, it
is only one election?
A commentator who
read the full Chinery-Hesse Report said:
“This is a report for all time,
well-reasoned and with full justification
for all the recommendations.”
The Chinery-Hesse
committee said its report represented “a
bold attempt to shift from the current
regime of Emolument Packages ….that
ultimately negatively impact on Retirement
Benefits.”
Time will tell
whether the Chinery-Hesse Report deserved
the abrasive rancor it received. But more
telling will be if the new committee, set up
by President Mills, would frame any of its
reasoning on the reports’ assumptions and
conclusions.
Meanwhile, the
constitutional issue raised by Mr. Asamoah,
concerning the ongoing payments of public
official salaries, deserves to be resolved.
Parliament has a historic obligation to make
a stand on the issue and to define exactly
what the Chinery-Hesse Report was meant to
accomplish.
E. Ablorh-Odjidja,
Publisher www.ghanadot.com, January 13, 2011
Permission to
publish: Please feel free to publish or
reproduce, with credits, unedited. If posted
on a website, email a copy of the web page
to publisher@ghanadot.com. Or don't publish
at all.
|
