President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo has justified his refusal to assent to the Witchcraft and other bills that have been presented to his office.
According to the President, a careful examination of the bills shows they do not comply with the provisions of the 1992 constitution.
The bills are the Criminal Offences Amendment Bill 2023, the Criminal Offences Amendment Bill Number 2, 2023, and the Ghana Armed Forces Amendment Bill 2023.
In a letter to Parliament, the president said his objections were based on possible financial effects on the state’s consolidated fund and alleged breaches of the constitution.
“After a careful examination of the relevant constitutional legislative frameworks, especially Article 108 of the constitution and section 100 of the Public Financial Management Act 2016, Act 921, it is clear that the bills proposed as private member’s bills do not comply with the provisions of the constitution,” the President explained,
The Speaker of Parliament, Rt Hon Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, read the letter to the House on Monday and disclosed that the Attorney General had doubts about the Ghana Armed Forces Amendment Bill 2023.
The Witchcraft and other bills, introduced by MP Francis Xavier Sosu, sought to replace the death penalty with a life sentence but were questioned for possible financial effects, particularly related to imprisonment costs.
President Akufo-Addo stressed the financial strain these bills could cause for the Ghanaian taxpayer, saying, “These bills, which abolish the death penalty and outlaw the activities of witch doctors, impose significant financial obligations on the consolidated fund and other public funds of Ghana due to the estimated cost related to imprisonment, maintenance, and healthcare for those who will be sentenced under them if they become law.”
“Mr Speaker, I appreciate your efforts in passing the bills, but I cannot approve them at this stage. I believe that the bills have merit and I support their objectives, but I also respect the legislative process and its integrity.”
“Therefore, I will not sign them until they undergo further scrutiny and consultation. I hope you understand my position and I look forward to working with you to reintroduce the bills in Parliament shortly,” the letter reads.
A visibly displeased Speaker Alban Bagbin openly expressed strong disagreement with the President’s stance, describing it as ‘tragically wrong’.
The President, he said, had not been properly advised and had not been informed of the processes the bills went through.
“The President has not been properly advised, and the President has not been properly informed of these processes these bills have gone through, so I will submit a detailed write-up for members to read and provide their comments. But I’m very clear that this message and the contents are irregular, wrongful, and unconstitutional,” Speaker Bagbin asserted.
According to him, the responsibility to decide whether a bill should come on a private member or not rests on the person presiding.
He stressed that the procedure in the Act clearly states what the President is expected to do when a bill passed by Parliament is referred to him and the President refuses to assent to the bill.
” It’s not for the president to decide on the constitutionality or otherwise of a bill that has been presented and considered by Parliament,” he stated.
